In 1977, Hurt noted that “the most likely comment of an automobile driver involved in a traffic collision with a motorcycle is that he, or she, did not SEE the motorcycle…” Hurt continued: “The origin of this problem seems to be related to the element of conspicuity (or conspicuousness) of the motorcycle; in other words, how easy it is to see the motorcycle. When the motorcycle and the automobile are on collision paths, or when the vehicles are in opposing traffic, the conspicuity due to motion is very low, if it exists at all. Consequently, recognition of the motorcycle by the automobile driver will depend entirely upon the conspicuity due to contrast. If the approaching motorcycle and rider blend well with the background scene, and if the automobile driver has not developed improved visual search habits which include low-threat targets…the motorcycle will not be recognized as a vehicle and a traffic hazard exists” (emphasis added). But there is more to the story than that.
When you write a report, try to disprove your own opinions. Philosopher of Science, Karl Popper wrote that “whenever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practice this precept; but other people, fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it ourselves. Yet criticism will be fruitful only if we state our problem as clearly as we can and put our solution in a sufficiently definite form – a form in which it can be critically discussed.” Adopting this type of approach will make you a better accident reconstructionists and a better witness.
Hey everybody. This is my first attempt at a summary of the literature on the braking capabilities of motorcyclists, one small section for the motorcycle accident reconstruction book I'm working on with Lou Peck and William Neale. I would love to hear your comments on this - what is it missing? what do you like and not like?
Hey, everybody. In this article I’m passing along a conversation I recently had with Will Bortles of Kineticorp about the research he just published at the 2017 Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress. This research relates to methods for acquiring data from passenger vehicle infotainment systems.
If you missed Parts I or II of this series, here are links to those: Part I and Part II. In this installment, I review the prior literature related to using PC-Crash software to simulate rollover crashes. In a future installment, I will extend this prior literature and present analysis of a full-scale, steering-induced rollover crash test with PC-Crash.
PC-Crash is a vehicular accident simulation software that is widely used in the accident reconstruction community. Later parts of this article will review the prior literature that has addressed the capabilities of PC-Crash along with its accuracy and reliability for various applications (planar collisions, rollovers, and human motion). I actively use PC-Crash software in my accident reconstruction practice.
The following mechanisms of energy dissipation may need to be considered when calculating the initial speed of a vehicle that impacted a wooden utility pole: (1) crushing of the vehicle; (2) full or partial fracture of the pole; (3) moving and tilting of the pole within the ground; (4) acceleration of the pole after a full fracture; and (5) tire, and other dragging forces, acting on the vehicle during its post-impact motion [Daily, 2009; Cofone, 2007 and 2012].