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!]
I am angered at the report that Ashley was at fault by driving on the wrong side of the road. Just look at the damage to the other car (RENAULT) and you can see that this vehicle was speeding and overturned. The vehicle looks as if it had already been crushed in the scrap heap. Speed kills and we all know this. The vehicle does not usually overturn when one is driving at a normal speed.
I, and the 4 million other viewers (including all non-viewers also) will want to know the truth. Already Ashley hasn’t had her Memorial Service and people are picking up bribes and lying. Trust me as I trust God, the truth will be revealed and the culprit/s will pay dearly for Ashley’s untimely death.
Rest in peace Ashley
Helen
The driver of the Scenic was quite obviously speeding and overloaded. They can cover up as much as they like BUT the actual facts remain just that. I hope the guilty party lives a really miserable life until he reaches the age of 100 years and that each day he is reminded of his negligence and the misery he caused. He has his demons to live with !!
Guilty or not guilty . . . that is not my concern at the moment. It is evident that those who followed the soapie are, understandably, upset at the loss of someone whom they beleived they had come to know. In any close “relationship” when a “loss” takes place we go through the cycle of shock, disbelief, denial, etc. and eventually resolution. The reaction to the preliminary comments — right or wrong — is understandable. It is normal to jump to the defence of the “loved” one. As much as we do not wish to have Ashley prematurely judged, we need to be careful to exhonerate her before we do have ALL the facts. Do not assume there are “culprits” that will have to pay. It might have been an accident . . . or an error on Ashley’s part . . . or who knows? And that’s the point — we do not know.
We must not be quick to judge anyone. None of us can demand to know the truth or expect to, only the family at this stage needs to know. We all need to be mourning her death and not judging and condeming people.
On a personal note, my condolences to the poor family. An amazing women who died too soon but will live in our hearts forever.
I am saddened at the fact that people are now blaming parties.
We should all be praying for the injured and mourne for the loss of Callie. The evidence should speak for itself not wannabes who are now trying to get some attention.
R.I.P Ashley
When I read that article I was deeply saddened, the story has no concrete evidence coming from an investigator. This is still an early stage for the Callie family, the others involved and South Africa as a nation.
Lala ngoxolo Sis’ Ashley, ugqatso lakho emhlabeni ulufezile .
It is tipical South Africa!
We can not even do a proper investigation. I am in the risk management field and in my career conducted hundreds of occupational accident investigations. There is no way that one person could carry out an investigation and by himself come to such conclusion. Mr investigator - go back to school. You are in the wrong occupation.
My condolences to Callie’s family.
As an insider I can tell you that Ashley had been drinking at the event she attended just prior to the accident. That’s not saying the accident was her fault, but when someone famous is injured or dies, we tend to pass blame to others.
Keep in mind also that rumors get started and the paparazzi are all to quick to feed off anything that will put them in the spotlight, truth or not. Until a full investigation has been concluded, we can not speculate. Even then all the facts will not be released.
God Bless all involved…
I agree with the reporter that the early acusations of the “investigator” where unfounded, as even a matriculant with the subject of physiscs would determine that according to the sketch of the accident that the laws of physics would automatically deduct that the renault with five/six occupants (still unsure bout that) was definatelly at a marginally greater speed than that of Callie’s smart four four.
My real question here is that this resembles very much an accident test that people performed with a smart four four running with 120km into a concrete barrier head on.. that is a tremendous decelleration and is according to physicians unsurvivable. Evenso little or no serious injury occurs.
Having driven the smart four four myself same car same colour same everything as callie, i know that that if she was turning she couldn’t even have made the turn at 60 km/h without feeling an uneasy discomfort in the handling of the car as it gives feedback. To chuck the smart back to where it ended up the other car would have had to overcome the forward momentum as well as initiate a reverse momentum against gears etc.. to get the smart to move backwards to where it came to rest, nevermind the distance it still managed to crash.
Personally i do believe Callie could not have survived the crash in any car based on the impact stegth equalling that of stoping from 120km to 0 immediately. This alone would have required opposite car to be driving 60 as well as her driving 60 but this is NCAP tested and should be survivable…
Wow! This lady was great in Isidingo and seems to have been a nice person but we dont know her or what was going on in her life. People should wait and see - we all makes mistakes and just cos she is famous to an extent doesnt exclude her - and if it turns out that she was at fault then we should accept that too and just be sorry that things turned out like they did. We seem to think (me included) that people we see everyday on our TV’s are invincible - sadly not so!!
RIP
Nice article. Just a little thing though and this draws from South African guidelines such as “if a car hits you from behind, then they are in the wrong”. In the UK, if you pull in front of another car and they are unable to stop and avoid hitting you, you are in the wrong. If you slam on brakes and someone hits you from behind (and there wasn’t a very good reason for your sudden action), you are in the wrong.
In this line of thinking, yes, she would have been in the wrong.
However, in most of the countries I have travelled to (mostly first world and by no means an exhaustive list), you simply aren’t given the opportunity to pull in front of traffic like that. Where a car might need to turn across oncoming traffic, that would be completely govered by a traffic light. So the people going straight and turning left (or right, depending on country) will all go. Then their light will turn red and those who want to turn right will be able to do so on a separate light turning green. This prevents people from being in the centre of the intersection and waiting; it prevents people from taking chances and misjudging other cars (as you article says, you have to consider the human factor) and finally, it prevents that sense of impatience and the feeling that the light will change before you make it across - your turn will come and the light will turn. I think a 30 second green flashing arrow at most intersections in Johannesburg (where I’m from) is pathetic and a great factor in road accidents.
In Dubai for example, this applies to every single intersection I encountered; in the UK, it applies to most of the larger intersections.
My condolences to the Callie family. To the collegues and friends of Ashley Callie, be strong, she lives in your Hearts. Reading a few of the previous articles, it saddens me to think that Ashley’s funeral has not even taken place yet but all these accusations and blame is being passed around. To the so called “investigator” go do your homework before releasing statements to make a name for yourself.
Other than the driver and passengers of the Renault, God knows the truth, and yes the truth will be revealed, it always does.
According to the first reports there were 5 people in the Renault, three supposedly in hospital in a critical condition. Where are the other two and why can’t they explain what happened? Where there no surveillance camera’s at the intersection where the accident took place?
REST IN PEACE ASHLEY !
I have noted the contents of most comments. One thing that has not been addressed is that the police investigator is(or claims to be) in possession of the statements of witnesses to the accident who also state Callie was on the wrong side of the road.
My plea to all is many lives have been shattered by this accident including the parties in the other vehicle. All need prayer
To Debbie,
I would like to know how you are aware of the contents of the statements of witnessess? Seeing that a report should not be released to the media/public before first of all, the invetigation is concluded, and secondly, the criminal trial (if there was to be one) has been concluded. So it is really strange that you would know what exactly is contained in classified statements?
You clearly did not read my comment with understanding. At no stage did I say I had read the statements of the witnesses. I merely alluded to the fact that the investigator in his interview with the press claimed to be in possession of the statements of witnesses who said that the vehicle was on the wrong side of the road. At no state do I say that I am taking a particular stand here. As I said in my original comment all parties to this accident need prayer.
The investigator also said that he could not SMELL any alcohol on anyone, is he for real? Forgive me, but after that I am not really inclined to believe anything that he says. Lets say she was on the wrong side of the road, maybe she has some kind of mechanical failure…who knows? But if she was standing still, how is this her fault? Did the investigator rule out the possibility of a mechanical failure? Did he even consider this? If not, how did he arrive at his conclusion without going over every single possibility. I dont think he ever did, because he doenst sound very sure “a very strong possibilty….” Yes, that sounds very concrete and assured…
Your inane comments are quite irritating and clearly defensive.
I have no wish to enter into any further discussion with you in this regard.
By the way why do you choose to use the name “Anon”?
Inane? Defensive? All I do is merely pose some valid questions. Its common sense that leads me to ask these questions. This is why so little ever gets resolved, because people refuse to discuss the issues at hand. I sure do hope that nothing like this ever happens to anyone, but still the truth has to come out. It cant just be set aside or forgotten.
In addition, if you didnt want to enter into this discussion why did you answer my post, or even place a comment on this blog? If you really didnt want to get involved you wouldve stayed away.
Have a nice day.
Did anyone happen to read the People magazine article?
If you read the people magazine article, you’ll see that there was someone who witnessed the entire accident. He was driving behind Ashley for quite a way and saw the Renault speeding like crazy down the road towards them, (Ashley and he were on the opposite side of the intersection) it was zigzagging and then appeared to hit the pavement or something on the side of the road. Ashley and the witness had been slowing down for a red robot. The renault then sped thru the intersection thru the red light and smashed into Ashley Callie’s car. The witness behind her got such a fright and thought the car was going to smash into him as well that he ramped onto the pavement. He has a pic of his scratched car. He was very traumatised, so did not give a statement to the Metro police there. They told him he could give his statement to the Linden police the next day. Then the article in the Star appeared laying the blame on the actress. The witness was not contacted by the Star. It appears as if there was some gap between the metro police and the Linden police’s communication about this witness’s statement.
Wayne Minnaar stated in the people mag article that they had not reached a final outcome in the investigations. The witness’s explanation makes the most sense, as opposed to speculating that she was on the wrong side of the road etc. What is the official take on taking blood samples from an injured person? Apparently once a drip goes in, no trace of alcohol is left.