831622
The Trajectories of Pedestrians,
Motorcycles, Motorcyclists, etc.,
Following a Road Accident
ABSTRACT
For many years accident investigators have
been faced by the problem of estimating the
projection velocity associated with a given
trajectory. The most recent contributions to
this topic were two papers at the 1981 AAAM
but these, like earlier work, deal only with
the aerial part of the trajectory, until the
object first lands. In most accidents however
the point of first landing cannot be determined
and it is the point at which the object comes
to rest which is recorded.
The present paper derives an equation for
the projection velocity associated with a given
total trajectory. Using this equation it is
possible to bracket the limits within which the
projection velocity must lie, even when the
angle of projection is unknown. In order to
facilitate the use of this approach, data have
been obtained on the frictional coefficients.
This information is compared with existing
field data on pedestrian trajectories. It is
found that these pedestrian trajectories corres-
pond to only a percentage of the full velocity
of the vehicle. This percentage is large for
children struck by vehicles with high front ends,
approaching 100%, but is significantly less for
adults and for vehicles with low fronts.
FOLLOWING A ROAD ACCIDENT, it frequently happens
that one or more objects are projected into a
trajectory through the air. A case very frequen­
tly encountered is where a motorcycle runs into
the side of an automobile, either forward or
rearward of the main passenger compartment.
When this occurs the rider is projected over
the top of the front or back of the automobile,
as the case may be, and ends up some considerable
distance away. This has been illustrated in a
recent Stapp Conference paper by Langwieder (1)*
*Numbers in parentheses designate References at
the end of the paper
277
John A. Searle
Motor Industry Research Association
Angela Searle
A different type of situation is where a
vehicle loses control and goes over a drop or
steep slope, for instance an embankment forming
the road edge. Here again there will be a
trajectory as a projectile, following which the
vehicle will bounce and slide to a stop.
Yet another example occurs when a pedestrian
or bicyclist is struck by an automobile. In
many cases the pedestrian is projected on a
simple trajectory, although in others he may be
carried to some extent on the automobile, which
is of course usually braking heavily by that
time. The kinematics of this process have been
well described by Ravani et al (2).
For many years accident investigators have
faced the problem of estimating the projection
velocity associated with a given trajectory.
One of the earliest treatments was by J. Stannard
Baker (3) who produced results in tabular form to
help in the estimation. Much more recently there
were two papers (4, 5) addressing this subject at
the 1981 AAAM Conference.
What all these papers have in common is that
they treat only the aerial part of the trajectory,
until the object first lands. In a few cases
this is very convenient, as the point of first
landing is clearly defined by some available
evidence. In many more cases however the point
of first landing cannot be determined. After
landing, the motorcyclist or pedestrian travels
along the ground by a combination of bouncing
and sliding, until eventually he comes to rest.
It is this rest position which is normally
recorded by those first on the scene, and sub-
sequently measured and drawn on a sketch plan.
Furthermore it is usually the rest position
which is marked by physical evidence, such as a
deposit of blood or oil.
The distinction is not a trivial one, as
the bouncing and sliding part of the trajectory
can be greater in length than the aerial part.
It is the purpose of this paper to show what
information about speed can be derived from the
total trajectory. As with the earlier work
dealing with the aerial trajectory, this inform-
 ation is derived in the form of upper and lower on substituting back this valué into Formula 1
bounds on the possible range of velocity valúes. we find:-

THEORY
It is necessary to derive a formula for the
total trajectory, including bouncing and sliding,
for an object projected on a level surface. The
projection takes place at velocity V and angle 9,
and the object has a coefficient of friction p
and a coefficient of rebound e on the surface.
This derivation has been relegated to an
Appendix, as the mathematics is somewhat detailed.
The formula obtained by the mathematical treat-
ment is:-
v = ' C h ¡Í____________ ~ (D
(eos © + sin 9)
pgs
v . (2)
min
Ni 1 +
Establishing the máximum valué of the velocity
is slightly more complicated but is less often
required. It can be shown that the máximum is
given by:-
v (3)
max
provided it may be assumed that the angle of
projection was below some critical valué 6 ^
This critical valué depends on the coefficient’
of friction in the following way:-

The first point to note, which is of some 9 = 180° - 2 arctan — - (4)

crit ji
importance, is that the formula does not contain
e, the coefficient of rebound. This might be This is listed in Table 1 for different valúes
thought to be somewhat unexpected, on the grounds of p .
that an elastic object would bounce further. On
further reflection however it will be appreciated TABLE 1 CRITICAL PROJECTION ANGLE
that a high coefficient of rebound will result in
a larger vertical velocity change at each bounce,
and therefore the horizontal velocity is des- Coefficient of Critical projection
troyed by friction more quickly. The absence of friction p angle 0
cr it
this coefficient from the formula may be a hint
that the derivation of the Appendix is unneces-
sarily complicated, and that in a simpler way 0.3 33°
exists. In any case, however, this absence 0.4 44°
makes it much more practicable to use the formula
For most objeets the coefficient of rebound is 0.5 53°
unknown, although probably fairly small, but 0.6 62°
fortunately it is not required for the formula.

0
r*»
o
Another point of interest is that the 0.7
valúes of velocity obtained from the formula 0.8 77°
are not critically dependent on p , the coeffic­

ient of friction. The velocity is most dependent
upon p when the angle of projection is very small.
In that case the velocity estimate varies only
half as much as any variation in the valué of p .
For any higher angle of projection the depend-
eney decreases, becoming quite low at middle
angles. This means that the velocities estimated
by this method are not so dependent upon the co­
efficient of friction as, say, vehicle velocities
estimated from skid marks.
DETERMINATION OF UPPER AND LOWER BOUNDS ON
VELOCITY
If the angle of projection is not known,
which is the situation in the vast majority of
cases, Formula 1 cannot give a unique estimate
for the velocity. It can however give upper
and lower bounds, by considering those valúes of
the projection angle 9 that will maximise and
minimise the expression.
Considering the valué of 9 that minimises
the Formula 1 expression, straightforward calculus
shows that this occurs when:-
tan 9 = p that is 9 = arctan p
0
0.9 00
This Table is to be read in the following
way, taking as an example the case where the
coefficient of friction of the surface is 0.6.
For this valué, if the angle of projection is
known not to have been higher than 62 then the
velocity of projection must have been less than
\¡2 p g s , that is >/1.2 gs. If on the other hand
the angle of projection may have been larger
than 62 , no upper bound to the velocity can be
established. It is very often known that the
angle of projection is small, even where it is
not actually known, and in such cases an upper
bound can be put to the velocity as well as a
lower bound.
It is interesting to examine how these upper
and lower bounds vary with the coefficient of
friction p. This is shown in Figure 1 from which
it will be seen that the range between the bounds
is small at low coefficients of friction, increas-
ing to some 30% at higher ones. This means that,
even with high coefficients of friction, the true
velocity can be bracketed within - 15%. On
Figure 1 the line representing the upper bound

278
has been shown broken, since it is subject to the
proviso that the angle of projection is not
any larger than the critical projection angle.
On Figure 1 the bounds have been expressed
in non-dimensional terms, as a fractional valué
between 0 and 1. The actual numerical valué is
obtained by multiplying by J 2 g s . Incidently it
may be noted that to estimate the minimum velocity
on the basis that the whole trajectory is airborne
is equivalent to taking the coefficient of fric-
tion to be unity.
FRICTION VALUES
The friction valué to be used with the
above formulae and graphs is of course that
actually present, at the time of the accident,
between the projected object and the surface on
which it bounces and si ides to rest. To assist
readers in making use of the formulae, however,
several typical coefficients of friction have
been measured. These are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2 COEFFICIENTS OF FRICTION FOR VARIOUS
SITUATIONS
Coefficient
Object Surface
of Friction
Ylotorcycle on
its side
Dry asphalt 0.35 to Q .50
Wet asphalt 0.30 to 0.40
Per son in
normal clothes
Dry asphalt)
0.66*
Wet asphalt)
Dry grass)
0.79*
Wet grass)
*No substantial difference between wet and dry
APPLICATION TO FIELD DATA ON PEDESTRIANS
An Ínteresting application is to the pedest-
rian "throw distances" measured by Professor
Appel et al (6). These were the distances that
pedestrians in road accidents were estimated to
have been projected, measured in the direction
of travel of the vehicle. In their paper, Appel
et al give graphs of throw distance as a function
of vehicle speed. Distinctions are made between
adults and children, and between vehicles with
low and high front ends.
For each graph Appel et al show the range
of throw distances found at a given speed. Such
information can equally readily be presented as
a range of speeds for a given throw distance,
merely by turning the graph round. For the
reader's convenience Professor Appel1s results
are shown in Figure 2, presented in this form.
279
The mathematical parts of this paper have
derived formulae for the upper and lower limits
of speed for a given throw distance. It is
therefore possible to compare the predictions of
these formulae with the field results of Professor
Appel. In making this compar i son it is clear
that the upper bound formulae will need to be
employed with the máximum reasonable valué of
friction, and the lower bound formulae with the
minimum reasonable valué. This is because the
variation in friction contributes to the variation
of results observed in the field.
The compar ison, using = 1 . 0 and
p . = 0.3, is shown in Figure 5. It will be seen
a?1once that there are noticeable differences
between tbe field results and the theoretical
predictions. Although the predicted curves have
the right shape, the field results are giving a
higher speed for a given distance. It is clear
that there is some major factor operating which
has not been included in the analysis so far.
A further consideration of the results soon
suggests what this might be. The formulae are
predicting the initial velocity of the pedestrian,
not the velocity of the vehicle. It is often the
case that the velocity of the pedestrian, after
being struck, is somewhat less than the original
velocity of the vehicle. Indeed, in some of the
more severe accidents the vehicle passes under-
neath the pedestrian, providing a practical
demonstration that the pedestrian has less
velocity. Although Professor Appel has excluded
cases in which the contact was very glancing, it
is clear that in many impacts the velocity of the
pedestrian will be less than that of the vehicle.
Using this concept it is natural to express
the velocity of the pedestrian as a percentage of
that of the vehicle. When this is done the
following figures are found to fit the data well:-
Projection efficiency %
Adults 72.6
Children 81.3
Low front vehicles 68.9
Hiqh front vehicles 79.3
All groups combined 77.5
The fit now obtained to Professor Appel's
data is shown in Figure 4, where the mean pre­
dicted lines for thegroups have been superim-
posed on the field data. It is useful for some
purposes to sepárate out these groups into the
more specific categories:-
Projection efficiency %
Adults
with low front vehicles 64.0
with high front vehicles 74.4
Children
with low front vehicles 72.7
with high front vehicles 83.1
All groups combined 77.5
 These figures refiect what might be
expected from a consideration of centre of
gravity height. Adults struck by low front
cars are accelerated to less than two thirds
of the c a r 's speed whereas children struck by
high front cars are accelerated to nearly the
full valué of the c a r 1s speed. The other two
cases give intermedíate levels. With the inclu­
sión of this factor, the formulae derived in
this paper give an accurate prediction of the
field results.
EFFECT OF SLOPE
Just occasionally a trajectory will not be
on level ground but will be up or down a signi-
ficant slope. There is no analytical solution
for the total trajectory in such cases. However
a reasonable approximation may be derived by
noting that the total trajectory is part aerial
and part along the ground. Analytical express-
ions are readily available for the percentages
increase in the velocities required for each
type of motion. At the optimum angle, the
velocity for a given projection distance through
the air is increased by a factor:-
(1 + sin ex. )
where oCis the slope angle, positive uphill
The velocity for a given distance along the
ground is increased by a different factor:-
(eos oc + - sin oc)
P pedestrian, bieyele and motoreyele accident
The factor for the velocity increase
required for the actual trajectory, part aerial
and part along the ground, will lie between the
two. Usually there is not a great deal of
difference between the expressions and an inter­
medíate valué can be chosen with regard to
whether the actual trajectory is mainly aerial
or mainly along the ground.
CONCLUSIONS
(a) It is possible to derive a relatively simple
formula for the total trajectory, including
bouncing and sliding, of an object projected
over a rough surface. This formula does
not depend on the coefficient of rebound of
the object.
(b) Using this formula, theoretical upper and
lower bounds can be set on the velocity
corresponding to a given projection distance.
(c) Friction valúes have been measured for the
application of these results to commonly
encountered situations. These inelude
valúes appropriate for motoreyeles and
humans on both wet and dry roads.
(d) Application of this theory to the pedestrian
throw distances obtained by Professor Appel
indicates that pedestrians struck by vehicles
280
are accelerated only to a pecentage of the
full velocity of the vehicle. This percent-
age is larger for children than for adults
and larger when the vehicle has a high front
end than when it does not. For child pedes­
trians struck by vehicles with high front
ends, the percentage approaches 100%.
REFERENCES
1. LANGWIEDER, K. "Collision characteristics
and injuries to motoreyelists and moped
drivers". Twenty first STAPP Car Crash
Conference, Society of Automobile Engineers,
Warrendale, Pa, 1977, pp 261 - 301.
2. RAVINI, B., BROUGHAM, D. and MASON, R.T.
"Pedestrian post-impact kinematics and
injury patterns". Twenty fifth STAPP Car
Crash Conference, Society of Automobile
Engineers, Warrendale, Pa, 1981, pp 791 -
824.
3. BAKER, J.S. "Traffic Accident Investigation
Manual". The Traffic Institute, Northwest­
ern University, 1975, pp 225 - 227.
4. GERMAN, A., NOWAK, E.S. and GREEN, R . N .
"Vehicle dynamics: Free-flight trajectory
analysis" . Proceedings Twenty Fifth
A'nnual Conference, American Association
for Automotive Medicine, Morton Grove, II.,
1981, pp 435 - 448.
5. CROMACK, J.R. "Parametric analysis in
reconstruction". Proceedings Twenty Fifth
Annual Conference, American Association for
Automotive Medicine, Morton Grove, II.,
1981, pp 449 - 460.
6. APPEL, H., STÜRTZ, G. and GOTZEN, L.
"Influence of impact speed and vehicle
parameters on injuries of children and
adults in pedestrian accidents". Proceed­
ings 2nd International IRCOBI Conference,
1976, pp 83 - 100.
APPENDIX DERIVATION OF THE FORMULA

Consider an object which is projected at velocity V and angle 0 as illustrated in Figure 5.

The vertical component of this velocity will be V sin 9 which is written as v to facilitate the
algebra. The horizontal component is V eos 9 which is written as u. The object first lands after
a flight distance s and from elementary projectile theory

s = 2. uv
9

The object lands on the plañe, with which it has a coefficient of rebound e and a coefficient
of friction p . Immediately upon landing the object rebounds for a second flight. The vertical
component of the rebound velocity v^ will be e times the previous vertical component v. Furthermore
the horizontal component u^ after rebound will be reduced from the previous valué u by an amount
equal to p (v + v^). This is because v + v^ is the vertical velocity change and the coefficient of
friction is p .

After the first rebound we may therefore write

ev

u^ = u - p { v + v^) = u - ^víl + e) = u - p v - pev

The subsequent flight distance is

2 2 2
¿ o
s^ = 2 A evu ev pe v j
g ^
Progressing now to the second rebound, the same principies apply. The vertical rebound velocity v
will be e times the previous vertical component v^ and the horizontal component will be reduced by
u . ( v^ + v ). When these velocities are wtitten in terms of v and u we find
2
= ev = e v
V2
= u. u - pv - 2 p¡ev - p e v
2 1
= —2 .
2
g

It is by now clear how to construct the equations for the third rebound, which prove to be
3
ev2 = e v
2 3
= u2 - p v 2 (1 + e) = u - p v - 2pev - 2pe v - p e v
3 3 2 . 4 2 , 5 2 6 2

g
2. u 3v 3
= !•{ e vu - p e v - 2^ie v 2ue v - p e v

The next set of equations are similarly

4
ev3 = e v

- p v - 2 p e v - 2pe o 3 v - jje4v
- 2jje
U4 = U3 " / ,v3 (1 + e)
2. u.v.
g 4 4 Q L
4 4 2
e vu - j i e v o 5 v2
2/ue o e 6 v2
- 2u - o 7 v2
2jie
8 2
^ue v
}
The series of bounces continúes theoretically to infinity, but enough has been written to see the
pattern developing. The total distance covered will be

281
 2 s = s + s + s2 + s3 + s4

2 „ 2 2 , 3 2 . 4 2
!.i uv + euv + e uv + ■yjev - - 3yue
- 2|ie v ue v - 4pe v
9 L , 5v 2
- 5pe
■•••}

—•
g [1
f uv
- e
_ jaev2
(1 - e ) 2" j
7
Considering now the horizontal component of velocity, it will be seen that its valué at the end of
bouncing will be
2 3
U u - yuv (1 + 2e + 2e + 2e + ...... )

u + uv - 2uv = u - uv. 1 + e = u (1 - e ) - juv(l + e)

1 - e 7 1 - e (1 - e)

It follows that if u ) u v . 1 + e then U > 0 . This means that after the cessation of bouncing the
r 1 - e
object still has a residual sliding velocity. The additional sliding distance will be

U2 = fu(l-e) - jjv ( 1 + e) 7 2
2pg 2 y iq (1 - e) 2

The total distance is found by adding 27s to this and is

Remembering that u = V eos 0 and v = V sin © this may be written

2 2
S = V (eos © + u sin ®)
2/ig

The derivation of this formula has assumed that the vertical bouncing ceases before or at the
same time as the horizontal motion. This is almost universally true for natural objeets, which
generally have coefficients of rebound less than 0.2. It is not always true for any object especially
designed to bounce easily. The only one of these likely to be encountered in accident investigation
is a loose wheel, which if inflated may have a coefficient of rebound as high as 0.7 or so. If the
formula is applied to such objeets it will tend to under-estimate their velocity by up to 5%.

The derivation also assumes that the principal motion of the object is bouncing and sliding.
Again this is generally true for natural objeets, but not true for some objeets especially designed
to roll. For this reason again calculations on loose wheels may be inaccurate, as may calculations
on vehicles which have landed in their normal direction of motion and then rolled on their wheels.

282
 FIGURE 1 UPPER AND LOWER BOUND VALUES AS A FUNCTION OF THE
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
SPEED, m / s
I MPACT

0 10 20 30 40
THROW DISTANCE, m

a) SEPARATED BY AGE GROUP b) SEPARATED BY VEHICLE SHAPE

FIGURE 2 IMPACT SPEED CORRESPONDING TO AN OBSERVED THROW DISTANCE, FROM FIELD

DATA ( AFTER APPEL ET A L )

283
 -----------------MAX = 3 ■1 3 2 / s
----------------- M IN = 2 • 3 2 A /s
----------------- MEAN = 2 • 7 2 8 / s

FIGURE 3 IMPACT SPEEO CORRESPONDING TO AN OBSERVED

THROW D I ST AN CE, FROM PREDICTION FORMULAE
(ALE GROUPS COMBI NED)

b) SEPARATED BY VEHICLE SHAPE

|l' ^ FIELO DATA ■ ADULTS

• C HILDREN
------------MAX LINE
CORRECTED PREDICTIONS ♦ V CONTOUR
----------- M I N UNE
a PONTOON CONTOUR

FIGURE A COMPARISON OF FIELD DATA AND CORRECTED PREDICTIONS

284
285

BOUNCING SLIDING

FIGURE 5 FLIGHT OF A PROJECTILE OVER A ROUGH PLAÑE