Consider an intersection collision which WOLF reconstructed. A small gray pickup was crossing a preferential street after stopping at a stop sign. A black coupe was coming from the small pickup’s left on the preferential street and the front of the coupe struck the left side of the small pickup. The coupe laid down some short skid marks prior to impact. A reconstruction of the crash using information on the damage to the vehicles, distances traveled after impact, and the measured length of skid marks showed that coupe was traveling about the speed limit when it struck the small pickup.
Based on this information, one would conclude that the
driver of the pickup failed to yield the right of way and was at fault for
pulling out in front of the coupe. However, when the data from the coupe’s
recorder was extracted and analyzed, it led the analyst to a different
conclusion. The data showed that 5 seconds prior to the collision, the coupe
had been traveling well over the posted speed limit, but the driver of the
coupe had managed to reduce his speed prior to colliding with the pickup. The data
showed that the driver of the coupe was braking abruptly enough that his tires
likely left skid marks on the pavement. Because the car had anti-lock brakes,
the full length of the skid marks that it produced may not have been readily
apparent to the investigating officer. Had the coupe been traveling at the speed
limit during those 5 seconds, the driver of the pickup would have had time to
safely pass through the intersection and there would have been no collision. Had
the coupe been traveling at the speed limit as it approached the intersection,
the driver would not have needed to apply his brakes to avoid a collision.
When considering all the data, the conclusion was that the
crash resulted from the driver of the coupe exceeding the speed limit. This
example shows the importance of considering all the available evidence before arriving
at any conclusions about how a collision occurred.
www.wolftechnical.com
