A few days ago, six of us had a free ranging Zoom talk about using animation to determine the cause of a traffic accident. It was prompted by questions like the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I learned from the talk that in spite of the mess at the scene of a traffic accident there are reliable methods that experts use to determine the cause. These methods involve modeling<\/em> and animation<\/em> software that are input with data<\/em> and measurements<\/em> got at the scene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, misleading data can also get into the software. It was this fact that prompted one person to suggest blogging about animation in forensic work. (Refs 1, 2) Another suggested a Zoom talk about it. It’s a problem because once the participants in the judicial and dispute resolution processes see a misleading animation they can’t un-see it – the impression has been made. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Participants who might be misled include:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The data obtained during an accident investigation is put into modelling or simulation software<\/em> that develops an inanimate<\/em> model picture<\/em> of the accident scene that includes the vehicles and features involved. Some of the data also goes into animation software <\/em>connecting this software to the inanimate model <\/em>making the vehicles appear to move. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Examples of animation<\/span><\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cartoon figures you see in TV advertisements started out as inanimate<\/em> pictures in modelling software. Animation software got the figures moving to amuse and catch our attention – and prompt us to read the advertisement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The same principles underlie the animation of a traffic accident that helps us understand what happened. Some animations are alarming to watch and not amusing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You might take a look at the following simple animation depicting an accident from different view points and by the different drivers involved in the accident. It will give you an idea of what I’m talking about. If you are somewhat in awe at what you see then you understand part of the problem with animation in forensic work:<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=JFCFNDeoHKA<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Talkers at the Zoom table:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Stages followed during an accident investigator:<\/span><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some questions asked by a traffic accident investigator:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You can easily imagine how careful a reconstructionist must be with so much data to collect and input. S\/he must know how to use the software correctly, know the correct values to input, and how to correctly interpret the results. There’s no room for error in a forensic investigation when giving an opinion on cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One talker at the Zoom table noted: “I think whether it\u2019s animation or simulation\/modelling, the input values need to be shown to be correct, or at least reasonable, for the results to be correct and admissible. My concern is when realistic but unproven graphics<\/strong> such as lighting and colouring are used<\/span>. These effects can leave a subconscious impression on a judge or jury that can affect their perspective and judgement.” <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Accurate animation software <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Most accident reconstructionists accept that the modelling and animation software programs most frequently used are accurate. These are PC-Crash and Faro Blitz to name two of three or four. Nevertheless, where possible, calculations are checked by hand and input values made certain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Misusing animation software<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It’s also at the modelling and animating stages that inadvertent or deliberate misuse can occur. The talkers at the Zoom table didn’t think the latter was a serious problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, the software sellers \u201cbuild a case\u201d <\/em>promise still rings in my ear, and how that must resonate in the ear of some bad-cat experts. Google forensic animation and see for yourself. I am comforted by Ruth Corbin\u2019s findings in her excellent pilot study of 152 experts that all experts clearly understand that they serve the judicial process not their client or themselves. (Ref. 3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Expert reporting in plain, jargon-free English<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With so much data\/input arising from a traffic accident reconstruction I believe expert reports in plain English are essential for non-technical readers, or at least a summary report. Animations are so realistic – and in many ways, entertaining like a roller coaster – it’s essential to help readers know what they’re seeing and must focus on. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What did I get from our talk?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, February 27, 2022. ejorden@eastlink.ca<\/span><\/strong>) <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A few days ago, six of us had a free ranging Zoom talk about using animation to determine the cause of a traffic accident. It was prompted by questions like the following: Is there a problem using animation in forensic … Continue reading