M ARCH 2023, N O.

NAPARS News

President’s Column
by T OMMY S TURDIVAN
Greetings to the membership. I hope everyone is
ready for Spring. As always, I want to begin this
letter, by thanking everyone who makes NAPARS
such a great organization. All the Board members
and Officers for their continued hard work, as well
as our Administrator, Wade Bartlett, and Past Pres-
ident Chuck Veppert. Please make sure you have
planned ahead for the WREX Conference. Currently,
the attendance roster is at 1127 attendees and is
growing each day. Crash Testing is scheduled for
18 April 2023 at the Osceola Heritage Park in Or-
lando. Your Board of Directors and Officers voted
last month to sponsor a 50 year crash, which will
involve a 1956 Ford head-on into a 2006 Ford, will
take place on crash day, so we are really excited for WREX to begin. The Confer-
ence is scheduled for 17–21 April 17, 2023 at the Rosen Shingle Creek Resort.
If you have not registered, please register at www.WREX.org.
The Zoom sessions are in full swing, and I encourage each of you to attend the free sessions. They are
two hours long, and we strive to get each one approved for two ACTAR CEUs. We have an exciting lineup
of presenters throughout the year, and we are adding presenters and topics each month. I encourage you to
regularly visit the NAPARS website and read your emails to stay up to date with the topics and presenters.
NAPARS is also offering several classes this year at discounted rates. There will be an Advanced Mo-
torcycle Crash Analysis class offered 15–19 May 2023 in Wichita, Kansas. Wade Bartlett is the instructor
of this class. Then 20–22 June 2023, in Canton, Ohio, Kent Boots will be teaching a class on collecting
EDR data with the Bosch CDR Tool, as well as the proprietary tools from Tesla, Kia, and Hyundai, and
utilizing the CDR 900. Kent will be accompanied by Andy Rich in instructing this class. On 26–30 June
2023, Greg Russell will be teaching his Crush and Energy Methods Class in Salt Lake City, Utah. Please visit
the NAPARS website at www.NAPARS.org for more information on these classes and to register, as these
classes are being offered at discounted rates to NAPARS members.
In reference to training, please remember that Crash Data Specialists offers a NAPARS member discount
for their classes. You can visit their web site at www.cdr-trainers.com. The Officers and Board Members are
continually trying to find ways to offer the membership more benefits, and the training classes are a large
part of that. I hope everyone will take advantage of this discounted training, as the cost of a NAPARS
membership is only $65 per year, and we are offering hundreds of dollars in discounts for most classes.
If you are attending WREX in April, I encourage you to visit the vendor booth for NAPARS while
at the conference. Currently, NAPARS has approximately 500 members attending WREX. Your Board of
Directors and Officers will be present to answer questions about NAPARS, renew memberships, accept new

1
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

memberships ,and hand out a special gift to our members who attend. We look forward to seeing each of
you at WREX.
Once again, I thank you for being a member of our great organization. I hope that each of you will
continue to help recruit new members and spread the word about NAPARS. We are growing in our mem-
bership each month. NAPARS is an ever-changing association, and I want to thank you for joining and
being a part of the best association in the accident reconstruction arena and for our membership nearing
the 1200 mark. If you want to participate in the newsletter, contact a Board member or officer, but please
continue to train and learn. Thank you.

Miscellaneous Ramblings: On Communi- lose them just as fast. If they can’t understand what
cation you mean in the way you intend it, then you have
by WADE B ARTLETT failed. If they understood, but don’t like you, you’ve
probably failed, too.
To the extent Around 1979, I got a portable cassette recorder
that I can opine and first heard an audio recording of myself. I was
on such things, flabbergasted at how often I said “you know.” Lis-
I would say suc- tening to it was painful, and not just because I hated
cess in the artis- the way my own voice sounded. I wish I’d had the
tic and science- internet back then; I might have found an article on
y field we call how to solve my “filler-word” problem faster. Here’s
Crash Analysis is one that jumped right out at me recently: 6 ways to
related in roughly stop saying.pdf “uh,” “you know,” and other word
equal parts to fillers. While trying to break my “you know” habit, I
one’s hard work, actually did much of what that author recommends.
technical knowledge, communication skills, and I think I improved the situation. Also, I have learned
luck. This overlapping quartet leading to a success- that many people have the same reaction to hearing
ful interior is shown in Figure 1. The more overlap recordings of their own voices.
you can achieve, the greater your chance of success, Over the years, I’ve had attorneys mention that
right? they really liked that I tend to PAUSE before answer-
I submit that ing a question in deposition or trial. It gave the im-
communication pression that I was taking the questions and my an-
includes an array swers seriously. That habit started while I was trying
of delivery modal- to erase “you know” from my vocabulary. Sometimes
ities. Using terms my tendency to pause while thinking how to formu-
like “modalities” late what I want to convey gets in the way on the
might not be in phone, as people think I’m done talking, and they
one’s best inter- start in on a new topic. But that’s how I roll.
est, though if ac- Independent from the filler word problem, as a
tual transfer of in- school-boy I just flat out dreaded speaking in front
formation is de- of a group of people. My earliest recognition of this
sired. There’s usu- was third grade, barely nine years old. I was sup-
ally three differ- posed to sing a little solo for the Christmas show, but
ent approaches when the moment came to belt out “Jolly Old Saint
to get something Nicholas,” I was mute. I stood silently paralyzed and
across, or share mortified in front of the small student body. My com-
info, or convey an fort level did not improve over the next 20 years.
ideation. I think of them as vernacular, proper, and About thirty-ish years ago, I decided I needed to do
rarified. Lean too far to one end of the spectrum, something about it. I tried a couple “Toastmasters”
and you risk having people feel talked-down to, but meetings. I think that may be great for some folks,
using techno-babble or high-falutin’ terminology can but it wasn’t for me. Next, I became an instructor for

Page 2
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. I felt like I could show, right?

focus on the delivery given a familiar topic. That I recently had an odd communication experi-
seems to have worked, as I don’t DREAD speaking ence. I was provided a bunch of file material, and
now, though I still get antsy. wrote a lengthy report of about nine pages outlin-
The recent transition to Zoom presentations has ing vehicle and operator capabilities, a time and dis-
made the audience less tangible, and I wonder if that tance analysis, and drawing conclusions about the
might have made public speaking easier for me 30 circumstances of the case. At counsel’s request, I
years ago. If it did, though, I think it would have added into my report every single photo I looked at.
been at the expense of having to learn to function Thankfully, there were only a few dozen. This gen-
when in person. Now I miss the roomful of actual tleman may have been crossing his t’s and dotting
people. Presenting a topic on Zoom by speaking into his i’s, but it felt like overkill to me. Perhaps he was
my computer feels a little fake. Like I’m practicing a trying to cater to anyone who might learn best with
presentation the night before the big show. Instead pictures, rather than through a lengthy narrative.
of pretending I’m talking to just one person in the I am a big fan of communicating through photo-
room (and often making eye contact with them), I graphs. I tend to insert between three and ten into
have to imagine that there is actually a person some- a report, usually in line with the text. Photos should
where out there looking back. I don’t think in-person be referenced in the body of the report before they
events will ever return to what they used to be, but appear. Photos should all have a figure number. They
I hope we can make more of them happen in the should all get a meaningful caption. If a photo isn’t
coming years. worth describing in the text, it’s not worth includ-
At the start of every deposition, there are some ing in the report. These “rules” are my own, based
rules the deposing attorney always goes over. They on how I think people will read and understand my
always say something like this: “If I ask a question report, and usually address my own unease when
you don’t understand, let me know and I’ll rephrase reading someone else’s report who does NOT follow
it, ok?” Some years back, a fellow three decades my this sort of convention.
senior offered this suggestion for a response to that: I think I’ll go listen to some of my recent Zoom
“I will answer the question as I understand it, if I presentations, as painful as it will be, to see how I’m
think there is any ambiguity, I will let you know, but doing with, um, you know, that filler word problem.
I can only answer the question I hear as I understand
it, not necessarily the question as you intended it, ACTAR Update
since I’m not in your head.” Though there’s arguably by A DAM H YDE
a level of “weasel-ness” to that on the face of it, as The Governing Board of Directors (GBOD) for
one attorney has observed, there is some basis for ACTAR would like to thank everyone that responded
the disclaimer. to our survey late last year. We appreciate the time,
What if I think I understood the question, but effort, and feedback to the questions and look for-
I didn’t understand it the way it was intended? A ward to adapting the feedback into our program.
few times over the years, we’ve been three ques- More will be provided in the future about the sur-
tions deep in a line of questioning before I figured vey results.
out counsel was asking a different question than I NAPARS continues to be active in hosting AC-
understood. Usually it revolves around an ambigu- TAR examinations to help serve our membership
ous pronoun, like “he.” My realization of the error base across the United States and the globe. We be-
usually happens when a follow-on question goes in gan 2023 by hosting an accreditation examination in
a completely different way than I expected. Hold on, Baton Rouge and two examinations for candidates
counselor. I think we need to revisit a previous ques- in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in February,
tion, which I may have understood differently than reaching over 30 crash investigation professionals. If
you intended. you missed those opportunities, we have others on
If what I say is understood in the way that I the horizon with additional examinations scheduled
meant it, then communication has occurred, right? for May in Baton Rouge, August in Chicagoland,
So most grammar strictures that don’t improve clar- and November in Connecticut. Visit ACTAR calendar
ity or reduce misunderstanding are more or less for for up-to-date examination locations in 2023. The

Page 3
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

Board urges all NAPARS members to pursue profes- Instructions for installing and testing the i-Attend
sional accreditation and pursue continuing educa- Self Check-In application are available using one of
tional training opportunities. the hyperlinks on the website.
Important!
WREX ACTAR Update
The iAttend attendance tracking system was im- Use It or Lose It
plemented by ACTAR a couple years ago now and by G EORGE M EINSCHEIN
has been utilized at all online NAPARS training op- Editor’s note: The solutions to the problems are at
portunities over the past year. The same system and the end of the newsletter.
procedures will be utilized at WREX to properly
credit CEUs to attendees at various presentations.
If you have not done so to date, please visit 1. A driver checks his cell phone to see who just
https://actar.org and update your personal informa- sent a text message, drifts off the right side
tion and, most importantly, your active email ad- of the road, hits a mailbox, skids 20 feet on
dress. You will “check-in” at all WREX sessions using a paved driveway, skids 40 feet across a wet
the Self Check-In iAttend application. This will be lawn, and comes to a final rest position almost
the only way to earn CEUs, so be sure to learn more touching the side of a house. Assuming aver-
about the process prior to April’s conference. age drag factors of 0.70 for the driveway and
A great tutorial and step-by-step set of instruc- 0.25 for the wet lawn, what was the vehicle’s
tions can be found on the ACTAR website on the CEU speed when it left the roadway if there was no
earning page. speed loss from striking the mailbox?
Here is a reminder of the details: 2. Using the information from Problem 1, what
Beginning May 2022, ACTAR instituted a new was the vehicle’s speed when it crossed from
way of tracking CEUs at conferences and other select the driveway to the lawn?
training events. Generally, these events will feature 3. Using the information from Problems 1 and 2,
menu style schedules that allow attendees to choose how much time elapsed from the vehicle’s de-
the sessions in which they wish to participate. parture from the road until it came to rest
Participants will be required to check-in to the against the house?
various sessions they choose to attend. CEUs will be 4. A Ring doorbell video captured a crash be-
awarded only for the sessions in which the partici- tween a bicyclist and an SUV backing out of
pant verified their attendance with i-Attend. a driveway. Analysis of the recording revealed
This process involves you, the accredited pro- the cyclist’s cadence was 60 rpm. Examination
fessional, verifying your participation/attendance at of the bicycle revealed that the tire diameter
the conference sessions eligible for ACTAR CEUs. It was 27 inches, the chain ring had 52 teeth, and
will be your responsibility to check-in during each the sprocket on the rear wheel had 16 teeth.
session to be awarded CEUs for that session. What was the bicycle’s speed?

A Blast from the Past

An Accident Reconstruction Journal article, March/April 2013, reprinted with the publisher’s permission.
[Ed. note: Minor editting changes.]
by WADE B ARTLETT AND R ICK J OBE
The vast majority of crash analyses rely to one degree or another on the drag factor developed by a pas-
senger car or light truck on a roadway. As a result of this importance, there have been a plethora of papers
and articles over the years discussing the drag factor for various conditions and situations (dry/wet/snowy
pavement, contaminated roadways, ice, gravel, grass, soil, ABS/Skidding, deflated tires, and more).
Recently, Vericom has published the Vericom 2012 Drag Factor Table c , which includes the results of
932 braking tests.1 This dataset expands the knowledge base for ABS and non-ABS tests significantly. These
tests were conducted during Vericom training classes, Vericom research and development, and independent
testing by Vericom users. The tests were conducted between 1997 and 2012. The training classes were held
in 27 U.S. states, 4 Canadian provinces, Australia, New Zealand, and England. Vehicles were driven by the

Page 4
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

vehicle owner or assignee. Roadways were hard and dry, including asphalt, chip seal and concrete. Training
class tests were often conducted in parking lots.
The equipment used was generally the latest hardware and software at the time, including Vericom
VC2000PC, VC3000PC, VC3000DAQ, VC4000PC or VC4000DAQ, and most recently VC4000DAQ with
GPS. Operation procedures as described in the owner’s manual were followed including a calibration check
and zeroing for the slope. Average acceleration for each test was calculated by the Profile software as the
total change in velocity divided by the elapsed time of the stop (∆V /∆t) as determined by Vericom’s Run
Duration Protocol (RDP)TM .
Tests were categorized as involving one of three types of braking: ABS (antilock brake system engaged,
845 tests), STD (standard non-ABS, 44 tests), and ABSDA (ABS disabled, 43 tests). Table 1 shows the
statistical summary for the entire dataset. The STD and ABSDA sets were essentially identical, and have
therefore been combined as “Non-ABS” for further evaluation and comparison. A compilation of skid test
results by Baker Engineering was reported in SAE 2010-01-00662 , the summary statistics for which are
also shown in Table 1 for comparison. Additionally, summary statistics are shown for the data assembled
for that SAE paper, including other non-Vericom data reported in this article.

Table 1. Comparing new Vericom data with previously available data sets.

2012 Vericom Data Baker Data Set Bartlett Data Set

Count Average (SD) Count Average (SD) Count Average (SD)
ABS 845 0.869 (0.042) 1043 0.821 (0.067) 48 0.829 (0.077)
ABS disabled 43 0.751 (0.025) — — — —
Standard 47 0.761 (0.029) — — — —
All non-ABS 87 0.756 (0.028) 161 0.755 (0.064) 48 0.741 (0.057)

Figure 1 shows normal probability curves for ABS and non-ABS tests. Normally distributed data will
appear in this type of plot as a straight line. The concave nature of the ABS curve indicates either a data set
skewed to the right (towards less aggressive values), or a normal data set which has a truncated right-tail.
Figure 2 shows a histogram of the ABS and Non-ABS data. The non-ABS data is seen to form a generally
symmetric bell-curve, though the tails on either side are much shorter than earlier data sets. The ABS data
appears to be a normally distributed bell-curve with the right tail truncated at approximately –0.8g. The
reason for this truncation is not known. The ABS data in SAE 2010-01-0066 was shown to start below
–0.7g. Given the statistics of the current set, one would expect more than a dozen tests less aggressive
than –0.78g for a normally-distributed variable (more than 2 standard deviations below the average). The
Vericom data includes more newer-model vehicles, which may explain the higher ABS values, but does not
seem to explain the truncation.
The four lowest tests identified as “ABS” are noticeably separate from the rest of the ABS data in
Figure 1, suggesting that they are anomalous or “different” in some way. Figure 3 shows the SUV/light
truck data separated from the car data. All four of the low values were light trucks, but they look anomalous
as compared to other light trucks in Figure 3, also. They may be correctly identified and are slightly less
than three standard deviations from the mean, so they have been retained. Because the rest of the ABS set
is so large, their inclusion does not meaningfully alter the statistics. Since they are very near the average
value for the non-ABS set, including them there would not change the results meaningfully, either.
In SAE paper 2010-01-0066, Bartlett et al showed that on average, the ABS systems in newer vehicles
got slightly more ABS improvement as compared to older vehicles. Figure 4 updates that analysis for cars
built since 1995, and shows a 0.26% average annual increase in ABS-improvement over skidding.
Locked-wheel skidding values for passenger-cars have changed only very slightly over the past three
decades. Locked wheel tests do not include the added variability of ABS-computer software, and thus
would be expected to fall into a narrower range. Figures 1 and 2 show that to be true for the Vericom data.
Both data sets have lower standard deviations than the Baker or Bartlett sets shown in Table 1. This may
be a result of using common test and reporting procedures.

Page 5
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

Figure 1. Probability plots of complete Vericom braking datasets for test with and without ABS active.
Normally distributed data will fall along a straight line. Because the vehicle is slowing due to braking,
acceleration is negative.

Figure 2. Histograms of Vericom data comparing ABS (blue) and non-ABS (red) test results.

In addition to the value of the new Vericom dataset in its entirety, it included 14 sets of ABS/non-ABS
test pairs conducted with the same car on the same site. This constitutes a significant addition to that type
of data, as reported in Figure 4 of SAE 2010-01-0066. In addition to the new Vericom data, further data
have been drawn from other recent testing and public sources (as shown in Table 2) to create Figure 5.
This shows that for sedans built since 1995, during straight-line stops on dry pavement, ABS provides an
average improvement in drag factor of 13.6%. The improvements range from 0.5% to 32%. One test of a
2005 Ford CVPI generated an ABS penalty of 8.3%. This is more than three standard deviations below the
mean, and suggests a problem with that data (e.g., the car’s ABS system was not functioning properly).
It has been discarded as an outlier. Figure 6 shows the probability plot for ABS improvement for SUVs
and pickups. ABS provided an average of only 9% improvement in light trucks over their skidding value,
ranging from a 6% penalty to an improvement of 17%.

Page 6
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

Figure 3. Vericom data: probability plots of car and SUV/light truck data separated.

Figure 4. Showing ABS and Skidding values for passenger cars built since 1995, incorporating 12 new test
pairs from Vericom Drag Factor Table.

Page 7
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

Table 2. Additional data for tests where individual vehicles were tested with and without ABS active on
the same surface.

Figure 5. Improvement in braking rates with ABS over locked-wheel condition, for sedans and passenger
cars built since 1995, including 12 new tests from Vericom and additional tests from other sources as
listed in Table 2.

Page 8
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

Figure 6. Improvement in braking rates with ABS over locked-wheel condition, for light duty trucks
(pickups and SUVs). Negative values indicate an ABS drag factor that is less aggressive than skidding.

Conclusion
A new set of braking test results has been presented, including ABS and non-ABS stops on dry roadway
surfaces. The new data provides additional foundation for assessing the probabilities associated with ABS
or non-ABS stopping capability of modern vehicles. It also allows evaluation of the probabilities associated
with the relationship between these two braking conditions. This dataset shows that simply assuming a
12% improvement of ABS over skidding values (as is sometimes done) is not particularly accurate.

References

1. Vericomcomputers.com/DragTable, accessed 01 December 2012.

2. Bartlett W and Wright W, Braking on Dry Pavement and Gravel With and Without ABS, SAE 2010-
01-0066.

Page 9
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

Use It or Lose It Solutions

1. This is a combined speed problem. Equation 11.23 on page 348 of Daily, Shigemura and Daily’s
Fundamentals of Traffic Crash Reconstruction, Volume 2 can be used to find the vehicle’s initial speed.
The solution is:
q
S0 = 30 (f1 D1 + f2 D2 + · · · + fn Dn ) + Sf2
p
= 30(0.70 × 20) + (0.25)(40) + 0
p
= 30 × (14 + 10)
√
= 720
S0 = 26.8 mph = 27 mph or 39.3 ft/sec.
2. Since the vehicle’s final speed was 0 mph when it cam to rest almost touching the house, the slide-
to-stop formula applied across the wet lawn can be used to find the vehicle’s intermediate speed. The
calculation is:
p
S = 30df
p
= 30(40)(0.25)
√
= 300
S = 17.3 mph = 17 mph or 25.4 ft/sec.
3. The total time of the off-road excursion in this case is found by adding the time required to cross the
driveway to the time needed to cross the lawn. The basic equation for average velocity is used for
each segment of the vehicle’s trajectory.
distance distance
Vavg = or time = .
time Vavg
Converting the speed from miles/hour to ft/sec, the equation for segment 1 becomes:

20
time1 =  
(39.3 + 25.4)
2
20
=
64.7
2
20
=
32.35
time1 = 0.6 sec.
The equation for segment 2 becomes:
40
time2 =  
(25.4 + 0)
2
40
= 
25.4
2
40
=
12.7
time2 = 3.1 sec.

Page 10
NAPARS News M ARCH 2023, N O 1

The total time of the off-road excursion was:

timetotal = time1 + time2

= 0.6 sec + 3.1 sec
timetotal = 3.7 sec.

4. One solution to this problem is found in Section 5.6.6 of Fundamentals of Pedestrian/Cyclist Traffic
Crash Reconstruction by Mike Reade and Tony Becker. Cadence is rotational speed of the bicycle’s
pedals. The cadence, gear ratio, and tire diameter are used to calculate the bicycle’s speed.

(RP M )(Tc )
Speed = ,
Ts (Diameter)π

where Tc is the number of teeth on the chain ring, and Ts is the number of teeth on the sprocket.

60(52)
Speed =
16(27)π
60(3.25)
=
27π    
1 ft 1 mile 60 min
= 16, 532 inch/min
12 in 5280 ft 1 hr
Speed = 15.7 mph = 16 mph.

Page 11