Development
of Requirements and Functional Specifications for
Crash Event Data Recorders
Final Report
1. Report No. |
2. Government Accession No. |
3. Recipient's Catalog No. |
||||
4. Title and Subtitle Development of Requirements and Functional Specifications for Crash Event Data Recorders – Final Report |
5. Report Date December 2004 |
|||||
6. Performing Organization Code |
||||||
7. Author(s) John Pierowicz, Daniel P. Fuglewicz, Glenn Wilson |
8. Performing Organization Report No. |
|||||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address General Dynamics, Advanced Information Systems 4455 Genesee Street Buffalo, NY 14225 |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Task 5 |
|||||
11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-01-C-00182 |
||||||
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Report |
|||||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code FHWA |
||||||
15. Supplementary Notes This program was administered through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS/JPO)). For further information, contact the Task Order Manager, Amy Houser: amy.houser@fmcsa.dot.gov. |
||||||
16. Abstract The U.S. DOT has conducted research on the requirements for a Crash Event Data Recorder to facilitate the reconstruction of commercial motor vehicle crashes. This report documents the work performed on the “Development of Requirements and Functional Specifications for Crash Event Data Recorders” project, performed under U.S. DOT Contract: DTFH61-01-C-00182, Task Number: BZ82B007. It includes the results from the three program tasks: Task 1 – Develop Requirements for an EDR through Crash Analysis, Task 2 – Review Previous and Ongoing Efforts with Respect to Event Data Recorders (EDRs) and Vehicle Data Recorders (VDRs), and Task 3 – Develop Functional Specifications for an Event Data Recorder (EDR) for Commercial Motor Vehicles. |
||||||
17. Key Word Commercial Motor Vehicles, Heavy Trucks, Tractor-Trailers, Crash Analysis, Event Data Recorders, Crash Data Recorders |
18. Distribution Statement |
|||||
19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified |
20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages |
22. Price |
|||
FOREWORD
This document is disseminated
under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its
contents or use thereof.
The contents of this report
reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the
data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
policy of the United States Department of Transportation.
This report does not constitute
a standard, specification, or regulation.
The United States Government
does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names
appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this
document.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded by the
Federal Highway Administration Intelligent Transportation Systems/Joint Program
Office and managed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The
authors are grateful for the support and contributions of many USDOT staff
members who provided valuable input and direction to the project including: Amy Houser (FMCSA), Deborah Freund (FMCSA),
Ralph Craft (FMCSA), John Hinch (NHTSA), Gary Toth (NHTSA), and Kate Hartman
(FHWA).
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACRONYM DEFINITION
3D Three Dimensional
∆V Delta V, Change
in Velocity
ABS Anti-Lock Braking
System
AC Alternating
Current
ACC Automatic Cruise
Control
Ack Acknowledge
ACN Automatic Collision
Notification
AMPS Advanced Mobile Phone
Service
APP Accelerator
Pedal Position
ASCII American Standard Code
for Information Exchange
ASR Acceleration Slip
Regulation
ATA American Trucking
Associations
ATC Automatic Traction
Control
AVSC Automatic Vehicle
Speed Control
BCI Bulk Current
Injection
BTU British Thermal
Units
CCVS Cruise Control/Vehicle
Speed
CCW Counterclockwise
CFC Channel Frequency
Class
CMV Commercial Motor
Vehicle
CTI Central Tire
Inflation
CVR Cockpit Voice
Recorder
CW Clockwise
DC Direct Current
DDU Driver Display Unit
DED Data Element
Definition
DERM Diagnostic Energy
Reserve Module
DIU Driver Interface
Unit
DL Driver’s License
DOF Degree-of-Freedom
DRL Daytime Running Lamps
DSRC Dedicated Short Range
Communication
EBS Electronic Braking
System
ECBS Electronically
Controlled Braking System
ECM Electronic/Engine
Control Module
ECU Engine Control Unit/
Electronic Control Unit
EDR Event Data Recorder
EEPROM Electrically-Erasable
Programmable Read-Only Memory
EMI Electromagnetic
Interference
EMS Emergency Medical
Services
ESN Electronic Serial
Number
ESV Enhanced Safety
Vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation
Administration
FARS Fatal Accident
Reporting System
ACRONYM DEFINITION
FCWS Forward Collision
Warning System
FDR Flight Data
Recorder
FHWA Federal Highway
Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration
FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards
FOT Field Operational
Test
g Acceleration
of Gravity
GES General Estimates
System
GHz GigaHertz
GIS Geographic
Information System
GM General Motors
GMT Greenwich Mean Time
GPRMC Recommended Minimum
Specific GPS/Transit Data
GPS Global Positioning
System
GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating
HDOP Horizontal Dilution of
Precision
HVAC Heating Ventilation and
Air Conditioning
Hz Hertz
I/O Input/Output
ID Identification
IEEE Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers
IrDA Infrared Data
Association
ISM InterStellar Medium
ISO International
Standards Organization
ITS/JPO Intelligent
Transportation Systems/Joint Program Office
IVI Intelligent
Vehicle Initiative
IWI Independent
Witness Incorporated
JPL Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
kbps Kilobits Per Second
KHz KiloHertz
kW Kilowatt(s)
Lat Latitude
LDWS Lane Departure Warning
System
LED Light-Emitting
Diode
Long Longitude
LRMS Location Reference
Message System
LTCCS Large Truck Crash
Causation Study
MB Megabytes
Mbps Mega-Bits Per Second
MHz MegaHertz
MMUCC Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
MV Motor Vehicle
MVEDR Motor Vehicle Event Data
Recorder
N Newton
NASA National Aeronautical
and Space Administration
NASS National Automotive
Sampling System
ACRONYM DEFINITION
NAV Navigation System
NCHRP National Cooperative
Highway Research Program
NCIC National Crime
Information Center
NCSA National Center for
Statistics and Analysis
NHTSA National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
NMEA National Maritime
Electronics Association
NTSB National
Transportation Safety Board
NVM Non-Volatile Memory
OEM Original Equipment
Manufacturer
OMC Office of Motor
Carriers
PAR Police Accident
Report
PC Personal Computer
PCMCIA Personal Computer Memory
Card International Association
PCU Pressure Control
Unit
PDA Personal Digital
Assistant
PDOF Principal Direction of
Force
PGN Parameter Group
Number
PID Perimeter
Identification
POI Point of Impact
PSD Power Spectral
Density
PTO Power Take Off
RF Radio Frequency
RH Relative Humidity
ROM Read Only Memory
RP Recommended
Practice
RPM Revolutions Per
Minute
SAE Society of
Automotive Engineers
SCI Special Crash Investigation
SDM Sensing Diagnostic
Module
SPN Suspect Parameter
Number
SRS Supplemental
Restraint System
T&B Truck and Bus
TCD Traffic Control
Device
TMA Truck Manufacturers
Association
TMC Technology and
Maintenance Council
TRB Transportation
Research Board
US United States
USB Universal Serial
Bus
USDOT United States Department
of Transportation
UTC Universal Time
Coordinated
VDC Volts Direct Current
VDR Vehicle Data
Recorder
VIN Vehicle
Identification Number
VRTC Vehicle Research and
Test Center
WG Working Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Intelligent Transportation Systems/Joint Program Office
(ITS/JPO) project, in collaboration with the Truck Manufacturers Association
(TMA). In this project, a comprehensive requirements analysis defined specific
crash event data recorder (EDR) requirements and functional specifications to
facilitate the reconstruction of crashes involving large trucks. These
requirements and specifications were developed through a review of previous and
on-going EDR work and an analysis of CMV crash data. Using this information,
specific data elements were ranked in the following three tiers to define crash
characteristics in crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs):
Tier 1 – The minimum required data elements for a crash EDR on CMVs.
Tier 2 – Additional data elements to the data elements in tier 1 that
would permit further analysis of crashes involving CMVs.
Tier
3 – A complete set of data crash elements to
thoroughly analyze crashes involving CMVs, including the data elements listed
in tiers 1 and 2 above.
After the tiers of data
elements were established, a cost effectiveness analysis was conducted to
estimate the costs of the data elements in each of the three tiers and to
determine whether one or more data elements would significantly increase the
cost of an EDR.
Tier 1 data elements
included:
·
Acceleration (Longitudinal, Lateral, and
Vertical)
·
Accelerator Pedal Position/Time History
·
Brake Status/Pressure/Time History
(includes Antilock Brake System)
·
Belt Status
·
Engine Speed
·
Steering Wheel Angle/Time History
·
Time/Date
·
Transmission Gear Selection
·
Vehicle Speed
·
Wheel Speeds
·
Vehicle Identification
·
Vehicle Path
Tier 2 data elements, in
addition to Tier 1 data elements, included:
·
Airbag Status
·
Battery and System Voltage
·
Cruise Control Status
·
Engine Retarder System Status
·
Traction Control Status
·
Clutch Position
·
Headlight Status
·
Running Light Status
·
Turn Signal Status
·
Warning Light Status
·
Windshield Wiper Status
·
Vehicle Load, Stability Control, Yaw and
Tilt Angle (Advanced sensor installation)
Tier 3
included data elements, in addition to Tier 1 and 2 data elements, as well as:
·
Brake Stroke
·
Brake System Pressure
·
Distance to Intersection
·
Driver – Eye Glance Position
·
Driver – Fatigue Status
·
Horn Use / Status
·
Roadway Surface Friction
·
Running Light Status
·
Side Object Detector
·
Tire Pressure
·
Truck Headway
·
Truck Lane Position
·
Video Imaging – Driver
·
Video Imaging – Roadside Environment
In addition to the data elements tiers, requirements were also
developed for EDR components, hardware, software, sensors, and databases.
Furthermore, the project addressed issues such as, the physical attributes of
the device, crash/environmental survivability, availability of appropriate
sensors; data storage and retrieval; crash event trigger algorithms; accuracy
and reliability; calibration; and maintainability. In summary, the Development
of Requirements and Functional Specifications for Crash Event Data Recorders
project can provide a foundation for a future design of a crash EDR for
CMVs.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Section Page
MODEL MINIMUM UNIFORM CRASH
CRITERIA DATA ELEMENTS REVIEW
IN-VEHICLE NETWORK DATA ELEMENTS
REVIEW
ON-BOARD LAND-VEHICLE MAYDAY
REPORTING INTERFACE REVIEW
TASK 3 – DEVELOP FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS
DATA ELEMENT COST-EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS
Humidity –
SAE J1455 and SAE J1211
Immersion
and Splash (Water, Chemicals, and Oils) –
SAE J1455
Steam
Cleaning/Pressure Washing – SAE J1455
Dust, Sand,
and Gravel Bombardment – SAE J1455
Mechanical
Vibration – SAE J1455
Steady-State
Electrical Characteristics – SAE J1455
Electrical
Noise and Electro-static/-magnetic Compatibility Characteristics
Size,
Weight, and Mounting Method
Interface
Configurations and Data Retrieval Process
Number of
Events Stored in EDR Memory
Multiple
Events and Overlap of Events
System
Calibration and Maintenance
Incorporation
with Fleet Management Tools
List of
Tables
Table Page
1 ...... Crash
Frequency by Body Type for GES Years 2000 and 2001
2 ...... Crash
Frequency by Body Type
3 ...... Crash
Frequency by Crash Configuration – 2000 GES
4 ...... Crash
Frequency by Crash Configuration – 2001 GES
6
..... Crash Relation to Roadway
7
..... Crash Relation to
Junction
8
..... Crash Manner of
Collision
9 ...... Crash
Roadway Alignment
11
.. Crash Atmospheric
Conditions
12
... Crash Surface Conditions
13
... Crash Lighting
Conditions
15
... Sample of Cases from the
LTCCS
17
... Data Elements and
Frequency of Occurrence in LTCCS Case Analysis
18 .... Summary
of EDR Event Algorithms
21
... SAE J1455 Temperature
Extremes for Heavy-Duty Truck/Tractor
22 .... SAE
J1455 12-Volt and 24-Volt Operating Characteristics
23 .... SAE
J1455 Transient Voltage Characteristics
24 .... Various
SAE Electrical Noise Test Standards
25 .... EDR
Data Survivability Parameters
27 .... EDR
Data Element Record Format
28 .... Examples
of Dual-Use EDR Technologies
List of
Figures
Figure Page
1....... EDR
System Connectivity Block Diagram
2 ...... Simplified
EDR Block Diagram
Crash Event Data Recorders (EDRs) can provide critical information on
crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to improve the current
understanding of vehicle safety and support the development of future crash
countermeasures. This Federal Highway Administration Intelligent Transportation
Systems/Joint Program Office (FHWA ITS/JPO) project, in collaboration with the
Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA), consisted of a comprehensive
requirements analysis, which defined specific EDR requirements and functional
specifications to facilitate the reconstruction of crashes involving large
trucks (gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds).
Specifically, the project built upon the findings of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sponsored Truck and Bus Event Data
Recorder Working Group (T&B EDR WG).
Three main tasks were performed in this project:
1.
Task 1 – Develop
Requirements for an EDR through Crash Analysis
2.
Task 2 – Review Previous
and Ongoing Efforts with Respect to EDRs and Vehicle Data Recorders (VDRs)
3.
Task 3 – Develop
Functional Specifications for an EDR for CMVs.
Task 1 consisted of
initially analyzing the National Crash Sampling
System’s (NASS’s) General Estimates System (GES) data to characterize large truck
(GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) crashes.
Then, a profile of large truck crashes established through
the use of NASS GES data was used to select crashes from the NHTSA/Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Large Truck Crash Causation Study
(LTCCS).
133 cases were selected from the LTCCS for in-depth crash analysis. The
analysis of these cases resulted in a list of data elements that could be
recorded by an EDR and be useful for crash reconstruction.
Task 2
consisted of reviewing EDR literature, uses, and recommendations from several
government agencies and other stakeholders. The majority of the recommendations
focused on the types of data elements that should be collected in an EDR. In
addition, the data elements available on the in-vehicle data networks (Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J-1587 and SAE J-1939) were reviewed.
Task 3
involved using the information in Task 1 and 2 to rank data elements in the
following three tiers to define crash characteristics in crashes involving CMVs:
Tier 1 – The minimum required
data elements for a crash EDR on CMVs.
Tier 2 – Additional data elements
to the data elements in tier 1 that would permit further analysis of crashes
involving CMVs.
Tier 3 – A complete set of data crash elements to thoroughly analyze
crashes involving CMVs, including the data elements listed in tiers 1 and 2
above.
After the categories of data elements were
established, a cost effectiveness analysis was conducted to estimate the costs
of the data elements in each of the three tiers and to determine whether one or
more data elements would significantly increase the cost of an EDR. In
addition, operational (environmental and electrical) specifications for an EDR
were created, along with methods of communication with an EDR in order to
off-load an EDR’s data.
This section summarizes the work performed on Task 1 – Develop Requirements for an EDR through Crash Analysis. The basis for this analysis included previous work from NHTSA, FMCSA, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), along with a comprehensive requirements analysis to define specific EDR requirements and functional specifications for the reconstruction of crashes involving large trucks. A requirements-based approach applied large truck crash data from the NHTSA/FMCSA LTCCS to derive requirements for an EDR that would facilitate crash reconstruction. These findings were used to develop functional specifications and requirements for an EDR that could be successfully implemented in large trucks.
In order to select a proper population of truck crashes for analysis, an evaluation of the large truck crash population was performed using the NASS GES. GES data come from a nationally representative sample of police reported motor vehicle crashes of all types, from minor to fatal. The GES began operation in 1988 to identify traffic safety problem areas, provide a basis for regulatory and consumer initiatives, and form the basis for cost and benefit analyses of traffic safety initiatives. The information is used to estimate how many motor vehicle crashes of different kinds take place and what happens when they occur. Although various sources suggest that about half of the motor vehicle crashes in the country are not reported to the police, the majority of these unreported crashes involve only minor property damage and no significant personal injury. By restricting attention to police-reported crashes, GES concentrates on those crashes of greatest concern to the highway safety community and the general public.
GES data are used in traffic safety analyses by NHTSA and other USDOT agencies. In order for a crash to be eligible for the GES sample, a police accident report (PAR) must be completed where the crash involved at least one motor vehicle traveling on a trafficway, resulting in property damage, injury, or death. These crash reports are chosen from 60 areas that reflect the geography, roadway mileage, population, and traffic density of the United States. GES data collectors make weekly visits to approximately 400 police jurisdictions in the 60 areas across the U.S., where they randomly sample about 50,000 PARs each year. The data collectors obtain copies of the PARs and send them to a central contractor for coding. No other data are collected beyond the selected PARs.
Trained data entry personnel interpret and code data directly from the PARs into an electronic data file. Approximately 90 data elements are coded into a common format. Some element modification takes place every other year in order to meet the changing needs of the traffic safety community. To protect individual privacy, no personal information, such as names, addresses, or specific crash locations, is coded. During coding, the data are checked electronically for validity and consistency. After the data file is created, further quality checks are performed on the data through computer processing and by the data coding supervisors.
To
understand an EDR’s utilization environment, an evaluation of GES data was
conducted to determine the type of crashes that large trucks are currently
involved in. For this analysis, two years of GES data, from 2000 and 2001, were
examined to determine if the trends observed in the data were consistent across
a two year period or if a “spike” in the data record. After an examination of
these results, data spikes were not apparent in the data, and the two years of
data were believed to be sufficient for this analysis.
In 2000
and 2001, over 11 million vehicle crashes were recorded in GES. As shown in
Table 1, medium/heavy truck crashes constituted 3.4% and 3.5% of the population
in 2000 and 2001, respectively. (Medium/heavy trucks in GES are
defined as large trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.) The data for
these various large truck body types are
also shown in Table
2. The crash
analysis for this project focused on these vehicles.
Table 1
Crash Frequency by Body Type for GES Years 2000 and 2001
|
Body
Type |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2000
GES Cum. Percent |
|
Automobiles and Derivatives |
6,730,902 |
59.3 |
59.3 |
|
Utility Vehicles |
1,080,662 |
9.5 |
68.8 |
|
Light Trucks |
2,814,394 |
24.8 |
93.6 |
|
Bus – School Bus |
26,510 |
0.2 |
93.8 |
|
Bus – Transit, Intercity, etc. |
26,749 |
0.2 |
94.0 |
|
Bus – Unknown |
2,573 |
0.0 |
94.0 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Step Van |
1,786 |
0.0 |
94.0 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Straight Truck |
140,769 |
1.2 |
95.2 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Motor Home |
3,011 |
0.0 |
95.2 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Tractor/Trailer |
208,466 |
1.8 |
97.0 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Unknown |
48,885 |
0.4 |
97.4 |
|
Motorcycles |
68,640 |
0.6 |
98.0 |
|
Other/Unknown Body Type |
192,863 |
1.7 |
99.7 |
|
Total |
11,346,210 |
99.7 |
99.7 |
|
Body
Type |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
2001
GES Cum. Percent |
|
Automobiles and Derivatives |
6,518,991 |
58.3 |
58.3 |
|
Utility Vehicles |
1,169,740 |
10.5 |
68.7 |
|
Light Trucks |
2,822,651 |
25.2 |
94.0 |
|
Bus – School Bus |
25,695 |
0.2 |
94.2 |
|
Bus – Transit, Intercity, etc. |
25,925 |
0.2 |
94.4 |
|
Bus – Unknown |
2,078 |
0.0 |
94.4 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Step Van |
1,844 |
0.0 |
94.4 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Straight Truck |
139,880 |
1.3 |
95.7 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Motor Home |
828 |
0.0 |
95.7 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Tractor/Trailer |
195,888 |
1.8 |
97.5 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Unknown |
47,379 |
0.4 |
97.9 |
|
Motorcycles |
72,089 |
0.6 |
98.5 |
|
Other/Unknown Body Type |
164,956 |
1.5 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
11,187,944 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Table 2
Crash Frequency by Body Type
|
Body
Type |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2000
GES Cum. Percent |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Step Van |
1,786 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Straight Truck |
140,769 |
34.9 |
35.3 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Motor Home |
3,011 |
0.7 |
36.0 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Truck/Tractor |
208,466 |
51.7 |
87.7 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Unknown |
48,885 |
12.1 |
99.8 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
99.8 |
99.8 |
|
Body
Type |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
2001
GES Cum. Percent |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Step Van |
1,844 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Straight Truck |
139,880 |
36.2 |
36.7 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Motor Home |
828 |
0.2 |
36.9 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Truck/Tractor |
195,888 |
50.8 |
87.7 |
|
Medium/Heavy Truck – Unknown |
47,379 |
12.3 |
100.0 |
|
Total |
385,819 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Table 3
Crash Frequency by Crash Configuration – 2000 GES
|
Cat. No. |
Code |
Category |
Configuration |
Description |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
|
- |
0 |
No Impact |
N/A |
|
11,548 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total: No Impact |
11,548 |
4.9 |
|
|
I |
1 |
Single Driver |
A: Right Roadside Departure |
Drive off road |
16,320 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
Single Driver |
B: Left Roadside Departure |
Drive off road |
4,237 |
||
|
|
11 |
Single Drive R |
C: Forward Impact |
Parked vehicle |
17,204 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Total: Single Driver |
37,761 |
15.9 |
|
|
II |
20 |
Same Trafficway, Same Direction |
D: Rear End |
Stopped |
44,637 |
|
|
|
II |
34 |
Same, Same Direction |
E: Forward Impact |
This vehicles strikes another vehicle |
30 |
||
|
II |
44 |
Same e Dir |
F: Sideswipe/Angle |
Straight ahead on left |
54,565 |
||
|
II |
Total: Same Trafficway,
Same Direction |
99,232 |
41.9 |
||||
|
III |
50 |
Same Trafficway, Opposite Direction |
G: Head on |
Lateral move (left/right) |
1,462 |
|
|
|
III |
54 |
Same |
H: Forward Impact |
This vehicle strikes another vehicle |
8 |
||
|
III |
64 |
S |
I: Sideswipe/Angle |
Lateral move (left/right) |
7,638 |
||
|
III |
Total: Same Trafficway, Opposite Direction |
9,108 |
3.8 |
||||
|
IV |
68 |
Changing Trafficway, Vehicle Turning |
J: Turn Across Path |
Initial opposite direction (left/right) |
25,048 |
|
|
|
IV |
76 |
Vehicle Turning |
K: Turn Into Path |
Turn into same direction (turning left) |
16,117 |
||
|
IV |
Total: Changing
Trafficway, Vehicle Turning |
41,165 |
17.4 |
||||
|
V |
86 |
Intersecting Paths (Vehicle damage) |
L: Straight Paths |
Striking from the right |
7,450 |
|
|
|
V |
Total: Intersecting
Paths (Vehicle damage) |
7,450 |
3.1 |
||||
|
VI |
92 |
Miscellaneous |
M: Backing |
Backing vehicle |
30,563 |
|
|
|
VI |
|
|
|
Total: Miscellaneous |
30,563 |
12.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
236,827 |
99.9* |
|
*Sum not equal to 100% due to rounding.
Table 4
Crash Frequency by Crash Configuration – 2001 GES
|
Cat. No. |
Code |
Category |
Configuration |
Description |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
|
- |
0 |
No Impact |
N/A |
|
15,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total: No Impact |
15,092 |
6.8 |
|
|
I |
1 |
Single Driver |
A: Right Roadside Departure |
Drive off road |
11,135 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
Single Driver |
B: Left Roadside Departure |
Drive off road |
3,751 |
||
|
|
11 |
Single Drive R |
C: Forward Impact |
Parked vehicle |
10,961 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Total: Single Driver |
25,847 |
11.6 |
|
|
II |
20 |
Same Trafficway, Same Direction |
D: Rear End |
Stopped |
44,049 |
|
|
|
II |
34 |
Same, Same Direction |
E: Forward Impact |
This vehicle strikes another vehicle |
349 |
||
|
II |
44 |
Same e Dir |
F: Sideswipe/Angle |
Straight ahead on left |
51,573 |
||
|
II |
Total: Same Trafficway,
Same Direction |
95,971 |
43.2 |
||||
|
III |
50 |
Same Trafficway, Opposite Direction |
G: Head on |
Lateral move (left/right) |
818 |
|
|
|
III |
54 |
Same |
H: Forward Impact |
This vehicle strikes another vehicle |
46 |
||
|
III |
64 |
S |
I: Sideswipe/Angle |
Lateral move (left/right) |
10,549 |
||
|
III |
|
|
|
Total: Same Trafficway, Opposite Direction |
11,413 |
5.1 |
|
|
IV |
68 |
Changing Trafficway, Vehicle Turning |
J: Turn Across Path |
Initial opposite direction (left/right) |
22,695 |
|
|
|
IV |
76 |
Vehicle Turning |
K: Turn Into Path |
Turn into same direction (turning left) |
14,470 |
||
|
IV |
Total: Changing
Trafficway, Vehicle Turning |
37,165 |
16.7 |
||||
|
V |
86 |
Intersecting Paths (Vehicle damage) |
L: Straight Paths |
Striking from the right |
5,624 |
|
|
|
V |
Total: Intersecting
Paths (Vehicle damage) |
5,624 |
2.5 |
||||
|
VI |
92 |
Miscellaneous |
M: Backing |
Backing vehicle |
31,162 |
|
|
|
VI |
|
|
|
Total: Miscellaneous |
31,162 |
14.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
222,274 |
99.9* |
|
*Sum not equal to 100% due to rounding.
GES crash data records also provided insight into the roadways where large truck crashes occur. Table 5 illustrates the distribution of vehicle crashes between the interstate highway system and other roadways. (An “Interstate Highway” is an FHWA designation for those roadways that are part of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways.) According to this data, approximately 21% of large truck crashes occurred on the interstate highways.
|
Interstate Highway |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
No |
317,335 |
78.8 |
303,459 |
78.7 |
|
Yes |
85,210 |
21.2 |
82,109 |
21.3 |
|
Total |
402,545 |
100.0 |
385,568 |
100.0 |
Table 6 provides additional data on the location of large
truck crashes. The Relation to Roadway Variable in the GES system provided data
on the location of the first harmful event where the first impact occurred. The
results provided data that is linked to the truck’s operational profile. While
the predominant location for the first harmful event is on the roadway, several
crashes occurred in the parking lane or on the roadside.
Table 6
Crash Relation to Roadway
|
Relation to Roadway |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
On roadway |
341,780 |
84.8 |
334,860 |
86.8 |
|
On shoulder |
5,926 |
1.5 |
3,659 |
0.9 |
|
On median |
3,868 |
1.0 |
3,700 |
1.0 |
|
On roadside |
24,068 |
6.0 |
18,420 |
4.8 |
|
Outside trafficway |
4,141 |
1.0 |
3,216 |
0.8 |
|
Off-road, location unknown |
4,989 |
1.2 |
6,788 |
1.8 |
|
In parking lane |
16,377 |
4.1 |
14,414 |
3.7 |
|
Gore |
612 |
0.2 |
368 |
0.1 |
|
Separator |
585 |
0.1 |
28 |
0.0 |
|
Unknown |
571 |
0.1 |
367 |
0.1 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
100.0 |
385,820 |
100.0 |
As shown in
Table 7, additional descriptive data regarding crash locations was provided by
the Relation to Junction Variable within the GES. In 2000 and 2001,
approximately 50 percent of large truck
crashes occurred between intersections in non-interchange, non-junction areas.
Table 7
Crash Relation to Junction
|
Relation to Junction |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
Non-interchange, non-junction |
192,646 |
47.8 |
193,608 |
47.6 |
|
Non-interchange, intersection |
60,736 |
15.1 |
60,900 |
15.8 |
|
Non-interchange, intersection-related |
80,677 |
20.0 |
80,131 |
20.8 |
|
Non-interchange, drive, alley |
35,223 |
8.7 |
26,476 |
6.9 |
|
Non-interchange, ramp |
2,461 |
0.6 |
1,533 |
0.4 |
|
Non-interchange, rail crossing |
1,895 |
0.5 |
1,732 |
0.4 |
|
Non-interchange, bridge |
2,425 |
0.6 |
2,065 |
0.5 |
|
Non-interchange, cross-over related |
1,154 |
0.3 |
804 |
0.2 |
|
Non-interchange, other |
636 |
0.2 |
2,115 |
0.5 |
|
Non-interchange, unknown |
2,332 |
0.6 |
2,217 |
0.6 |
|
Interchange, non-junction |
3,662 |
0.9 |
3,090 |
0.8 |
|
Interchange, intersection |
2,798 |
0.7 |
2,473 |
0.6 |
|
Interchange, intersection related |
1,180 |
0.3 |
1,120 |
0.3 |
|
Interchange, ramp |
14,129 |
3.5 |
16,006 |
4.1 |
|
Interchange, bridge |
170 |
0.0 |
75 |
0.0 |
|
Interchange, cross-over related |
52 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Interchange, other |
155 |
0.0 |
1,016 |
0.3 |
|
Interchange, unknown |
289 |
0.1 |
49 |
0.0 |
|
Unknown |
315 |
0.1 |
409 |
0.1 |
|
Total |
402,935 |
100.0 |
385,819 |
99.9* |
*Sum
not equal to 100% due to rounding.
The
crash configuration distribution for large trucks was analyzed by examining the
Manner of Collision Variable within the GES. The Manner of Collision Variable
(GES Variable A7) indicates the orientation of the vehicles in a collision. Table 8 illustrates this
distribution for large trucks for in 2000 and 2001.
The Manner of
Collision distribution for large trucks was dominated by four configurations;
“no collision,” “rear-end” (which includes the truck being hit from behind and
the truck striking the rear of other vehicle), “angle,” and “sideswipe, same
direction.” These four crash
configurations accounted for over 94% of large truck crashes in 2000 and 2001.
Table
8
Crash Manner of Collision
|
Manner of Collision |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
No collision |
104,710 |
26.0 |
90,045 |
23.3 |
|
Rear-end |
103,346 |
25.6 |
102,945 |
26.7 |
|
Head-on |
6,182 |
1.5 |
5,612 |
1.5 |
|
Rear-to-rear |
0 |
0.0 |
644 |
0.2 |
|
Angle |
103,168 |
25.6 |
106,148 |
27.5 |
|
Sideswipe, same direction |
73,198 |
18.2 |
64,799 |
16.8 |
|
Sideswipe, opposite direction |
11,977 |
3.0 |
14,290 |
3.7 |
|
Unknown |
336 |
0.1 |
1,335 |
0.3 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
100.0 |
385,818 |
100.0 |
The
roadway and environmental conditions data provided useful information for the
development of EDR requirements. These statistics revealed that large truck
crashes primarily occurred on straight and level roadways. Table 9 and Table 10 show the distribution of
large truck crashes by roadway alignment and roadway profile.
Table 9
Crash Roadway Alignment
|
Roadway Alignment |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
Straight |
318,668 |
79.1 |
297,758 |
77.2 |
|
Curve |
45,607 |
11.3 |
42,823 |
11.1 |
|
Unknown |
38,642 |
9.6 |
45,238 |
11.7 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
100.0 |
385,819 |
100.0 |
Table 10
Crash Roadway Profile
|
Roadway Profile |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
Level |
231,346 |
57.4 |
211,521 |
54.8 |
|
Grade |
72,815 |
18.1 |
67,596 |
17.5 |
|
Hillcrest |
5,345 |
1.3 |
6,964 |
1.8 |
|
Other |
394 |
0.1 |
364 |
0.1 |
|
Unknown |
93,017 |
23.1 |
99,373 |
25.8 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
100.0 |
385,818 |
100.0 |
As shown
in Table
11, the GES data revealed that large truck crashes
primarily occurred in daylight hours with no adverse weather conditions. A
smaller proportion of the crashes occurred in the rain.
Table 11
Crash
Atmospheric Conditions
|
Atmospheric Conditions |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
No Adverse |
340,959 |
84.6 |
339,860 |
88.1 |
|
Rain |
32,028 |
7.9 |
32,981 |
8.5 |
|
Sleet |
1,199 |
0.3 |
511 |
0.1 |
|
Snow |
17,894 |
4.4 |
7,136 |
1.8 |
|
Fog |
2,156 |
0.5 |
1,630 |
0.4 |
|
Rain & fog |
345 |
0.1 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Sleet & fog |
357 |
0.1 |
9 |
0.0 |
|
Other |
3,257 |
0.8 |
1,666 |
0.4 |
|
Unknown |
4,721 |
1.2 |
2,027 |
0.5 |
|
Total |
402,916 |
100.0 |
385,820 |
100.0 |
As shown in Table 12, the roadway surface conditions data mirrored the
data from atmospheric conditions. Crashes for large trucks occurred
predominantly on dry roads.
Table 12
Crash
Surface Conditions
|
Surface Conditions |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
Dry |
316,666 |
78.6 |
320,882 |
83.2 |
|
Wet |
53,348 |
13.2 |
48,197 |
12.5 |
|
Snow or slush |
15,624 |
3.9 |
5,171 |
1.3 |
|
Ice |
11,689 |
2.9 |
7,435 |
1.9 |
|
Sand, dirt, oil |
190 |
0.0 |
585 |
0.2 |
|
Other |
487 |
0.1 |
344 |
0.1 |
|
Unknown |
4,913 |
1.2 |
3,204 |
0.8 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
100.0 |
385,818 |
100.0 |
The lighting conditions under which these crashes
occurred are shown in Table
13. The predominant lighting condition for large truck
crashes was daylight.
Table 13
Crash Lighting
Conditions
|
Light Conditions |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
Daylight |
320,490 |
79.5 |
314,861 |
81.6 |
|
Dark |
32,602 |
8.1 |
27,898 |
7.2 |
|
Dark, but lighted |
33,452 |
8.3 |
28,987 |
7.5 |
|
Dawn |
9,500 |
2.4 |
7,656 |
2.0 |
|
Dusk |
4,245 |
1.1 |
4,745 |
1.2 |
|
Unknown |
2,628 |
0.7 |
1,673 |
0.4 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
100.0 |
385,820 |
100.0 |
The GES crash data file provided information about the characteristics
of each large truck crash. While not as detailed as the data retrieved from the
LTCCS, this data provided useful information about the kinematic environment
where crashes occur and the severity of the crashes.
The GES
Variable “First Harmful Event” describes the first property damaging or injury
producing event in the crash. This variable identifies the type of crash such
as, vehicle-to-vehicle, single-vehicle crash, or other type. Table 14 provides data on the first
harmful event for large trucks crashes as listed in the 2001 and 2002 GES data
file. The most harmful event in a large percentage of crashes was collision
with a “Vehicle in Transport.” This value
described vehicle-to-vehicle crashes between moving vehicles. The percentages
of crashes involving large trucks within this category in 2000 and 2001 were
74.0% and 76.7%, respectively.
Table 14
First
Harmful Event
|
First Harmful Event |
2000
GES Frequency |
2000
GES Percent |
2001
GES Frequency |
2001
GES Percent |
|
Non-collision |
|
|
|
|
|
Rollover/overturn |
12,644 |
3.1 |
11,292 |
2.9 |
|
Fire/explosion |
2,568 |
0.6 |
1,507 |
0.4 |
|
Jackknife |
4,251 |
1.1 |
3,121 |
0.8 |
|
Non-collision injury |
69 |
0.0 |
41 |
0.0 |
|
Road surface irregularity |
10 |
0.0 |
56 |
0.0 |
|
Other non-collision |
13,603 |
3.4 |
19,815 |
5.1 |
|
Thrown/falling object |
291 |
0.1 |
297 |
0.1 |
|
Collision with object not fixed |
|
|
|
|
|
Pedestrian |
1,672 |
0.4 |
910 |
0.2 |
|
Cycle/cyclist |
681 |
0.2 |
641 |
0.2 |
|
Train |
685 |
0.2 |
292 |
0.1 |
|
Animal |
4,419 |
1.1 |
4,482 |
1.2 |
|
Vehicle in transport |
298,207 |
74.0 |
295,774 |
76.7 |
|
Parked vehicle |
18,501 |
4.6 |
15,905 |
4.1 |
|
Other non-motorist |
16 |
0.0 |
246 |
0.1 |
|
Other object not fixed |
4,273 |
1.1 |
2,275 |
0.6 |
|
Object not fixed – no description |
425 |
0.1 |
36 |
0.0 |
|
Collision with fixed object |
|
|
|
|
|
Ground |
1,209 |
0.3 |
45 |
0.0 |
|
Building |
592 |
0.1 |
649 |
0.2 |
|
Impact attenuator |
388 |
0.1 |
50 |
0.0 |
|
Bridge structure |
2,436 |
0.6 |
511 |
0.1 |
|
Guard rail |
4,651 |
1.2 |
4,551 |
1.2 |
|
Traffic barrier |
2,070 |
0.5 |
2,314 |
0.6 |
|
Post/pole/support |
11,365 |
2.8 |
6,333 |
1.6 |
|
Culvert/ditch |
1,995 |
0.5 |
2,768 |
0.7 |
|
Curb |
803 |
0.2 |
587 |
0.2 |
|
Embankment |
1,521 |
0.4 |
1,716 |
0.4 |
|
Fence |
2,083 |
0.5 |
676 |
0.2 |
|
Wall |
885 |
0.2 |
384 |
0.1 |
|
Fire hydrant |
1,876 |
0.5 |
875 |
0.2 |
|
Shrubbery/bush |
97 |
0.0 |
268 |
0.1 |
|
Tree |
2,953 |
0.7 |
1,524 |
0.4 |
|
Boulder |
92 |
0.0 |
119 |
0.0 |
|
Other/Unknown |
|
|
|
|
|
Other fixed object |
5,524 |
1.4 |
5,383 |
1.4 |
|
Unknown |
62 |
0.0 |
378 |
0.1 |
|
Total |
402,917 |
100.0 |
385,821 |
100.0 |
To support the development of distinct tiers of the
most critical data elements, “real world” crash data from the LTCCS were
analyzed to facilitate determining the most beneficial types of recorded data
to reconstruct crashes involving large trucks. The profile of large truck
crashes established through the use of NASS GES data was used to select crashes
from the NHTSA/FMCSA LTCCS.
The LTCCS is the first national study to determine the reasons and associated
factors contributing to serious large truck crashes. Using this information,
agencies within the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) and others could
gain an understanding of crashes and work to implement effective
countermeasures to reduce the occurrence and severity of these crashes.
In
the LTCCS, researchers and State truck inspectors collected information on a
sample of large truck crashes. The NASS-trained researchers worked in unison
with state inspectors at a crash scene to investigate the facts and causes of
the truck-involved crash. The NASS-trained researchers worked with state
inspectors at a crash scene to investigate the facts and causes of the
truck-involved crash. NASS researchers depended on the voluntary participation
and cooperation of law enforcement agencies, hospitals, physicians, medical
examiners, coroners, tow yard operators, garages, vehicle storage facilities,
and the individuals involved in crashes. Cooperation was established with
police agencies and hospitals to provide copies or transcripts of official
records. Tow yards, police impound yards, and crash involved parties were
contacted to obtain permission to inspect vehicles. Personal or telephone
contact was made with interviewees to obtain information about occupant
characteristics and crash circumstances.
A specific set of data was retrieved from each LTCCS
case. Data acquired in each case included, but was not limited to:
·
First Harmful Event
·
Case Summary by Investigator
·
Critical Pre-Crash Event
·
Violations Charged
·
Critical Reason for Critical Event
·
Attempted Avoidance Maneuver
·
Scene Diagram
·
Relation to Roadway
·
Police Reported Travel Speed
·
Relation to Junction
The
selection of crash cases from the LTCCS was a critical step in the development
tiers of data elements for an EDR. The GES profile of large truck crashes
previously developed was used to select a similar profile of cases from the
LTCCS. The ideal situation would be for the LTCCS case profile to match the GES
crash profile previously established. Since the processing of all LTCCS data
was not complete at the time of this effort, the cases used for this analysis
were those that successfully passed all quality assurance steps within the
LTCCS as of March 2003.
The case assessment involved filtering the
available cases by crash type. The crash type variable and configuration codes
in the LTCCS and NASS GES files are identical, which allowed a comparison of
crash populations in both files. Only 213 crash cases were initially available
for use in this assessment. An initial review of these cases reduced the number
of cases to 180. Cases were dropped due to incomplete quality assurance checks,
or the truck was not an active participant in the crash, such as when a truck
is parked on the side of the road with the engine off and no driver present. A
second round of case reviews eliminated further cases. Since the LTCCS had not
completed the release of all data, a number of cases were withdrawn for further
quality assurance procedures.
The final number of LTCCS cases for the EDR
assessment was 133. The description of the crash
compiled by the investigator and the scene diagram were critical in the
identification of data elements for an EDR. Each individual case provided input
for a list of data elements that would assist in the reconstruction of that
case. The summing of the data elements for the various cases would show which
elements would have the most utility in the various crash categories and which
elements would be the least useful.
The
distribution of the crash types and configurations included in the sample was
examined to determine the fit with the previously developed GES profile. Table 15 illustrates the final distribution of the crash types
in the LTCCS cases.
In
the profile established from the GES data, the four most numerous crash
categories were:
·
Same Trafficway, Same Direction
·
Changing Trafficway, Vehicle Turning
·
Single Driver
·
Miscellaneous (Backing)
In
the population of LTCCS cases, these rash categories were the same. Yet, the
remaining three categories (Same Trafficway, Opposite Direction; No Impact; and
Intersecting Paths (Vehicle Damage)) were not in the same order in both crash
profiles. As a result, they were represented in the final LTCCS cases, but not
in the same order.
In
the profile of LTCCS cases, there was an under-representation of “Same
Trafficway, Same Direction” cases. These cases are typically rear-end or
sideswipe/angle crashes. Although these types were underrepresented, they
comprised a sufficient number for use in the assessment. Also, the “No Impact”
crash types were not present in the LTCCS cases. These crashes typically
included jack-knife crashes, comprising a small but significant population of
the large truck crash population. Given these constraints, the match of the
LTCCS cases to the GES Crash profile was adequate for a clinical analysis that
would be used to determine tiers of data element for an EDR, in addition to
other information sources.
Table 15
Sample
of Cases from the LTCCS
|
Cat. No. |
Code |
Category |
Configuration |
GES
Percentage 2000/2001 |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
|
- |
0 |
No Impact |
N/A |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total: No Impact |
4.9/6.8 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
|
I |
1 |
Single Driver |
A: Right Roadside Departure |
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
Single Driver |
B: Left Roadside Departure |
|
8 |
||
|
|
11 |
Single Drive r |
C: Forward Impact |
|
7 |
||
|
|
|
|
Total: Single Driver |
15.9/11.6 |
27 |
20.3 |
|
|
II |
20 |
Same Trafficway, Same Direction |
D: Rear End |
|
24 |
|
|
|
II |
34 |
Same, Same Direction |
E: Forward Impact |
|
1 |
||
|
II |
44 |
Same e Dir |
F: Sideswipe/Angle |
|
11 |
||
|
II |
Total: Same Trafficway,
Same Direction |
41.9/43.2 |
36 |
27.1 |
|||
|
III |
50 |
Same Trafficway, Opposite Direction |
G: Head on |
|
4 |
|
|
|
III |
54 |
Same |
H: Forward Impact |
|
1 |
||
|
III |
64 |
S |
I: Sideswipe/Angle |
|
2 |
||
|
III |
Total: Same Trafficway, Opposite Direction |
3.8/5.1 |
7 |
5.3 |
|||
|
IV |
68 |
Changing Trafficway, Vehicle Turning |
J: Turn Across Path |
|
17 |
|
|
|
IV |
76 |
Vehicle Turning |
K: Turn Into Path |
|
11 |
||
|
IV |
Total: Changing
Trafficway, Vehicle Turning |
17.4/16.7 |
28 |
21.0 |
|||
|
V |
86 |
Intersecting Paths (Vehicle damage) |
L: Straight Paths |
|
12 |
|
|
|
V |
|
|
Total: Intersecting
Paths |
3.1/2.5 |
12 |
9.0 |
|
|
VI |
92 |
Miscellaneous |
M: Backing |
|
23 |
|
|
|
VI |
|
|
Total: Miscellaneous |
12.9/14.0 |
23 |
17.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
99.9*/99.9* |
133 |
100.0 |
||
*Sum not equal to 100% due to rounding.
The goal of the analysis of LTCCS cases was to develop
a set of data elements for an EDR that would permit the reconstruction crashes
involving large trucks. The elements recorded from the LTCCS cases are shown in
Table 16.
Table 16
Data from LTCCS Cases
|
Form Type |
Variable Number |
|
General Vehicle |
7 –
Body Type 11 – Police Reported Travel Speed 17 – Violations Charged 20 – Relation to Roadway 21 – Relation to Junction 25 – Number of Travel Lanes 30 – Roadway Alignment 31 – Roadway Profile 32 – Roadway Surface Type 33 – Roadway Surface Condition 40 – Light Condition 41 – Atmospheric Condition 44 – Manner of Collision 45 – First Harmful Event 48 – Rollover 49 – Rollover Initiation Type 50 – Location of Rollover Initiation 54 – Fire Occurrence 55 – Origin of Fire |
|
Crash Event Assessment |
4 – Precrash Movement 5 – Critical Precrash Event 6 – Critical Reason for Critical Event 7 – Attempted Avoidance Maneuver 10 – Crash Type |
|
Investigator’s Description of Crash |
|
|
Driver/Surrogate
Description of Crash Event |
|
|
Crash Diagram |
|
In order to support the development of EDR data
element tiers, individual LTCCS cases were examined to determine what data
would provide information that could lead to the reconstruction of each crash
with a high degree of confidence. The cases included information on the
environment, driver actions, and vehicle kinematics that may have caused or
contributed to the crashes. While many of the data elements included on the list
are readily available on existing vehicles and may be acquired by a number of
different means, some data elements are not readily available on all large
trucks. For example, vehicle speed may be acquired through a number of
different means depending on the equipment on the vehicle, which may include:
·
Read-out of vehicle
speed sensor
·
Acquisition of speed
from Global Positioning System (GPS) data
·
Calculation of speed
from vehicle engine speed, gear engaged, and vehicle weight
Other situations exist where the
technology is well established and referenced directly. Each manufacturer may
use different means of acquiring the specific data elements. Also, the accuracy
of the data from data sources may be questionable depending on its use. For
instance, GPS provides information as
it pertains to the receiver’s antenna as it moves under the GPS satellites.
Concerning GPS-received heading data, it may be erroneously equated to vehicle
heading. The GPS provides the heading of the antenna, which may not be the direction
of the vehicle. This situation is most prevalent when there are big slip
angles, as found in a sliding turn or spin-out.
The summation of the data from the analysis of the
entire population of cases provided a listing of the frequency that a specific
data element occurred in the accident reports for the
reconstruction of the 133 crash cases. A total of 45 data elements were
identified in this analysis. The occurrence in the summed data ranged from 100%
to 0.8%. Table
17 lists the data elements in decreasing order of their
occurrence in the cases.
There was a drop-off in the data element frequency
after the first nine data elements. The remaining data elements have lower
frequency of occurrence values, since this information would be needed to
define specific crashes. The initial set of nine data elements would primarily
be used to describe the initial conditions of the vehicle before the crash
(vehicle speed, path, heading), the actions of the driver (throttle, brake,
steering position history) and the vehicle kinematics during the crash
(lateral, longitudinal tractor accelerations). The tenth data element in the
list was video imaging in front of the truck cab, which may be useful for the
detection of by the other vehicles involved in a crash.
Important
information about the assessment of the data elements is summarized below:
·
A time standard
by which all data can be linked is critically important in an EDR. The
established time standard allows the construction of a crash timeline during
the crash reconstruction effort.
·
Two data
elements that could be provided by onboard safety systems include vehicle
headway from Forward Collision Warning Systems (FCWS) and lane position from
Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS). These technologies would not be
available on all large trucks.
·
While video
imaging from the front of the vehicle was high on the listing of data elements,
the imaging of other aspects did not appear high in the listing.
·
Many of the
elements that are easily accessible on the vehicle data bus were not high on
the priority listing developed in this task. Also, “conventional” data such as
headlight status, engine speed, and transmission gear engaged could be easily
obtained.
·
While tractor
acceleration appears on a high percentage of cases, trailer acceleration does
not. This is primarily due to the dynamics of combination vehicles and the
crash types; the acceleration of the trailer is primarily important in cases
where the driver loses control, or the vehicle jackknifes. In other situations,
the dynamics and acceleration of the combined tractor and trailer are
essentially the same.
·
The data
elements listed in Table 17 were based on engineering judgment in analyzing the
LTCCS data to determine which data elements would have been useful in
reconstructing each crash in the set of 133 crashes.
Table
17
Data Elements and Frequency of Occurrence in LTCCS Case Analysis
|
Rank |
Data Element |
Frequency
(%) |
Possible Data Source |
|
1 |
Time Standard |
100.0 |
Real time
clock chip in EDR |
|
2 |
Vehicle Speed |
99.2 |
Speed
Sensor/Vehicle Network |
|
3 |
Vehicle Path |
99.2 |
GPS |
|
4 |
Throttle Position History |
96.8 |
Engine
ECU/Pedal Sensor/Vehicle Network |
|
5 |
Brake Position History |
96.8 |
Brake
position sensor/ABS ECU/Vehicle Network |
|
6 |
Steering Position History |
96.8 |
Steering
wheel position sensor |
|
7 |
Vehicle Heading |
96.0 |
GPS |
|
8 |
Acceleration – Tractor Longitudinal |
96.0 |
Accelerometer/ECU
– tractor |
|
9 |
Acceleration – Tractor Lateral |
95.2 |
Accelerometer/ECU
– tractor |
|
10 |
Video Imaging – Vehicle Front |
49.6 |
Video camera |