In this Issue:

ADAS and Accident Reconstruction:
A Look to the Future

Exploring 3D Imaging Technologies


Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) were first being used in the 1950’s with the adoption of the anti-lock braking system. Early ADAS include electronic stability control, blind-spot information, and traction control.

As technology has evolved, an increasing number of systems to improve driver, passenger, pedestrian, and vehicle safety have been introduced into vehicles.

The acceleration in use and the increasing complexity of ADAS technologies used across a variety of vehicles will require changes in current accident reconstruction and litigation response practices.

ADAS safety concerns include:

      Design Flaws                Software Glitches                       System Integration

      Technologies                Maintenance/Calibration            System Validation

      System Hacking           Operator Training

ADAS and Accident Reconstruction

Currently, the reconstruction of a vehicle accident relies primarily on physical evidence from the scene, post-accident position of the vehicles, extent of vehicle damage, tire marks, ECM data, and possibly camera data.

A vehicle with ADAS systems, as they increase in capability, must be analyzed in a different way. Accident reconstruction relies on data, for which ADAS could provide a trove, depending on how much access is provided, via their OEMs and privacy laws.

An ADAS autonomous vehicle may have about 40-100 computer processors. A glitch in the devices could result in an accident.

Currently, there is limited commonality between OEM manufacturers in technologies and terminology.

As ADAS achieves increased implementation in the marketplace, one would expect that there would be some sort of a standardization.

After a vehicle crash, you would need to know:

      - Was an ADAS autonomous system installed and/or involved?

      - Did it function properly?

      - Did it affect the outcome of the accident?

*Robert Swint will be making a presentation on ADAS and autonomous vehicles at the upcoming ABA   Megaconference in March. The full paper is available on ATA’s website.



Technology, if not kept up with, will leave you behind. Similar to the computers and cell phones we use in our every day life, the equipment we use as reconstructionists has evolved from large, unwieldy, and expensive single-purpose units to more affordable, compact, multi-function devices. The question now is: Can we replace established equipment with newer, more versatile devices that are easier to transport and manipulate? ATA seeks to answer this question by evaluating the imagery generated by multiple technologies to see if iPhone applications can produce results just as good as the machinery we currently use today.

Technology has progressed from laser survey equipment, to LiDAR 3D scanners and 3D laser scanners, to LiDAR drones, and now to LiDAR phones. The emphasis of new, developing technology has always been on precision and accuracy, with secondary considerations varying depending on aesthetics, time, and cost. Experts in crash investigations, be it police personnel or accident reconstructionists, have always looked at data collecting technology with a skeptical eye. As often as not, your data collecting procedures and technology will be challenged in a court room for accuracy and reliability.

If the technology being used does not pass the first stage of qualification, that of precision and accuracy, then the technology is not going to be used by police officers or accident reconstructionists. If it does pass that first stage, the next question should be, does the technology, although precise and accurate, bring value to comprehension of the facts? Labor time and costs are usually limited in the course of investigation, so one must also ask, how efficient is the product compared to other products? How much time and effort go into learning how to use and implement the tool and its associated programs, and how much time is taken in actual use of the product compared to other options?

Considering the advancements in LiDAR phone technology, it could potentially be the most accurate and most efficient tool to use in a crash incident investigation. But, has this technology truly reached it’s potential? How does it work? How easy is it to learn and use? Are there other comparable technologies that can compete with currently established technologies?

ATA is in the process of completing a comparative study of the following:

      - iPhone (Scaniverse, Recon3D, Polycam, Pix4D) vs. 3D Digitizers (FARO)

      - Photogrammetry (Context Capture) vs. 3D Digitizers (FARO)

      - Cell Phone Survey Equipment (Moasure) vs. Traditional Survey Equipment (Trimble)

Look for the next “Expert” article, to be published in the second quarter, which will outline the results of our study.