A more comprehensive report on aspects such as the highest type of offence reported or the most reported type of vehicle, etc, is planned for 2008. Visit the Call Centre section on the Arrive Alive Road Safety Website for more information on the Reporting of Bad Driving!!
Wednesday 20 February 2008
Two people died at the scene of a taxi accident today on the N1 North just before the Olifantsfontein bridge. The taxi had been travelling North in the fast lane when the driver lost control and swerved sharply to the left, crossing all the other lanes before leaving the road and rolling down an embankment coming to a stop just next to the freeway on ramp. Several passengers were flung from the vehicle as it overturned.
Arriving paramedics and a Netcare 911 doctor found one woman already dead on scene and 3 others that were critical, one of these patients, an adult male died a short while later at the scene.
Another patient that was critical was a little boy of about 3 years of age, one of the other female passengers told officials at the scene that the little boy had been travelling with the woman who had died.
The boy was airlifted to Johannesburg Hospital in the Netcare 911 helicopter, the helicopter then returned to the scene to airlift an adult male patient to Pretoria Academic Hospital. He was in a critical condition. It is believed the driver was one of the critically injured. A further 4 were classified as serious and 8 others suffered less severe injuries, they were all transported to Hospital by ambulance.
The scene was attended to by Netcare 911, the provincial fire and EMS and Metro Police.
[ Information provided by Netcare 911 to the Road Safety & Arrive Alive Blog]
NETCARE 911
Emergency No. 082 911
I was amazed to read the contents of a story on the news earlier today titled “Police detectives blame Isidingo star for accident”. I fear that justice would not be served if this is not scrutinized in more detail and raised this article with a prominent accident investigator for his comments.
I believe that his comments are educational towards a better understanding of both road safety and accident investigation, and would like to share this with the on-line community:
Observations from an accident investigator:
After having received yet another copy of a newspaper article, outlining the “causes” of an accident, I could not remain mute…
Notes from the News Story
The current newspaper article handled specifically the Ashley Callie accident, and - more importantly - the “cause” of the accident.
As I was reading the article, I learned that a Metro Police Accident Investigator had - according to the article - effectively expressed a finding in a criminal matter.
This was (seemingly) done even before the SAPS investigation had started.
I was impressed to observe the attention given to this matter, and the extent to which the investigator/s went. They visited the scene, produced scene drawings, examined vehicles at the scene and even afterwards at scrap yards, and then drew a conclusion.
The conclusion was that Ashley Callie was “in the wrong” in that she was “either on the wrong side of the road, or she turned in the face of oncoming traffic.”
It was added that the driver of the vehicle on the opposite side (Nico Pretorius) was speeding, but the extent could not be determined.
It was also determined (based on smell) that no-one was under the influence of alcohol.
It was added that there was no evidence to suggest why (exactly) Ashley would have been “on the wrong side of the road.”
Questions to be answered:
Having read the article with interest, I compiled the following list of questions, in an effort to lead people to a better understanding of the dynamics of a serious accident event, and to how such a matter should be investigated, in my humble opinion:
a) The “finding” was released before the SAPS investigation had even begun. It is (and remains) the function of the SAPS to investigate crimes. Why is there a public release before conclusion of the investigation and/or a trial?
b) Since there was “no reason” for Ashley to be “on the wrong side of the road,” how was the human factor considered, i.e. her ability to judge the exact position, location, speed, time to impact and forward dynamics of the approaching (read speeding) vehicle?
c) If the other vehicle was “speeding” and Ashley misjudged how long it would take to reach her, how is this “her fault?”
d) There was an investigation to determine if her indicator lamps were “on” at the time of the accident, but reference is only made to those on the front of her vehicle - were all lamps considered, including dash board lamps, head lamps, rear lamps, etc? There was no mention regarding whether or not either vehicle applied brakes at all (affected by PRT), and whether or not either vehicle showed evidence of braking (brake lamp evidence). Neither was mechanical failure (dash-board lamps are essential sources of information, since warning lamps might have been energized).
e) Considering the prevailing dynamics and the speed of the “speeding vehicle,” what if his (undetermined) speed was 150Km/h in a 60Km/h zone? Would the investigator still find that “This young chap (Pretorius) is not to be blamed for this accident?”
f) If we consider the fact that speeds were not calculated, how wrong is whom if Ashley was traveling at (say) 5Km/h and the other can at 100 Km/h (perhaps in a lower speed limit zone)?
g) To what extend were perception reaction times considered and calculated? How much time did Ashley (and the other driver) have to identify the threat (of an accident), process the possible outcomes, consider the best escape and/or prevention plan, execute the motor function required to achieve it, and then for the mechanical process of execution? How long did this take? Did either of them have time to react?
h) In a matter that is still pending in criminal court, and where the matter must still be investigated by the SAPS, who authorized the investigator to release his findings, and plans accompanying his findings, to the media (the public)?
i) If the investigator was independent and unbiased (as any police officer should be) in the matter, why or how was the decision made for him to release his findings before the criminal investigation or the trial had commenced?
j) If the investigator completed his investigation, but lacked certain skills (of any kind), how fair is it to either family for the finding to be released?
k) What medical factors were considered. There was no mention of medical autopsy reports being included in the accident analysis. Everything from diabetes to drug use and even period pains and fainting could have a direct influence on a person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle effectively. The possibility of stroke, heart attack, black-outs and even low or high blood pressure need to also be considered.
In my opinion, this release was premature, lacked all the relevant evidential elements for a conclusion to be reached and excluded the most important element of this kind of accident (human factor).
Interactive dynamics of an accident investigation
If we were to investigate the same matter, the following elements would or should be considered independently, and as a function of the accident event, and all its prevailing and interactive dynamics:
1) Mechanical Factors
It is possible that brakes, foot pedals, gear-choice, steering problems, light failure, shoes worn by drivers, head-lamp on/off status, clutch and many other mechanical elements could have contributed to the accident event. These need to be examined, considered, excluded and/or isolated.
2) Human Factors
Here, many elements apply, including the common factors, like PRT (Perception Reaction Time), but this analysis should include references to conspicuity, expectance, familiarity, cognitive inertia, prior learning patterns, medical conditions, physical skill, driving experience, familiarity with the vehicle being operated, prior knowledge of the road environment, mental state, in-vehicle distractions, cell phone use, and a vast array of other factors.
3) Engineering Factors
The design of the road, visibility, obstructions, road quality (bumps, pot-holes, etc), angle of incidence, traffic patterns, vehicle speeds (time/distance issues), etc.
4) Environmental Factors
These need to include situations inside and outside of the vehicle, and may include, weather, temperature, gases, leaks, ergonomics, vehicle mechanical influences (G-forces), etc.
5) Law Enforcement
There is no reason not to question the reasons why a person is able to speed in a particular area. If law enforcement mechanisms are adequate, and enforcement is common-place, the advent of speeding should reduce. Yet - if there is a permanent speed camera in one location, it is a known fact (in South Africa) that most people would comply with speed limits in the area of the camera, but that they would accelerate immediately after passing the camera. This is a form of speeding contribution, since the knowledge that a camera is in a particular location logically leads to the assumption that it is not in a location directly before and after the permanent camera.
6) Anomalous factors
There are many other factors that could influence driver behavior. Imagine anything from a be stinging a driver in the eye to a meteorite falling onto a vehicle, a tree blowing over in the wind, a bird striking a wind-screen or a scorpion stinging a driver on the leg - all anomalous events that the driver could not reasonably predict. Whether there is allowance in the law for this or not - these are real, possible and even likely events that could influence an accident event.
[The Arrive Alive Road Safety Website and this Blog would like to express our gratitude towards Stan Bezuidenhout for sharing his expertise on this matter and providing us with educational insights!]
Recent Comments