Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
95 Appendix C - Independent Case Review by Expert Advisory Group As an independent quality control check, the research team invited Harley-Davidson and their crash investigation team to conduct a rigorous case review of our in-depth crash investigations. David Mersfelder and Martin Hageman, Principal Engineers in the Harley-Davidson Product Integrity department, accepted our invitations. Both engineers are highly experienced in the motorcycle crash investigation and have years of experience in the reconstruction techniques needed for product defense cases. Our thanks to Harley- Davidson for agreeing to perform these reviews without cost to the project. In June 2013, Harley-Davidson reviewed two of our cases: WFU-001-D,P and WFU- 007-D. Case WFU-001-D,P, in particular, had been questioned by the Project Panel. Our case review protocol was to send the details of each crash to the reviewers about one week before the case review. Case details included scene photographs, motorcycle photographs, summary of the crash from the PAR, and a description of the injuries. The Harley-Davidson engineers independently reviewed the cases, and after a week met with the research team via a GoToMeeting web conference. The Harley-Davidson engineers presented their reconstructed time sequence of the pre-crash dynamics that led to the crash. They next presented the post-impact trajectories of the bike and rider(s) with their judgment of what likely caused the injuries. In both reviews, we presented the evidence, and the Harley-Davidson engineers asked for additional elaboration on the photographs before sharing their conclusions. The review of each case required about 1â2 hours. The primary focus of the Harley-Davidson engineers was on the likely actions of the operator that led to the crash. For both of these cases, Harley-Davidson provided refinements to the operator pre-crash errors, but they largely concurred with the motorcycle and rider trajectories and impact points that had been reported earlier to the Project Panel. In case WFU-001-D,P, they showed scene evidence that the operator had initially locked the rear tire while in a left lean, which reduced traction, causing the motorcycle to yaw and roll. After this, the operator locked the front tire, causing it to slide out to the right, laying the motorcycle down on the right side. In case WFU-007-D, they pointed out the errors in steering by the novice rider, which led to the guardrail impact. In both cases, they agreed with our assessment and the assessment of the trauma surgeon on the injury contact points and causation mechanisms. These case reviews were highly beneficial to the project, and Harley-Davidson has agreed to at least one more round of reviews in the upcoming quarter. Because of time constraints, Harley-Davidson was not able to review all of our cases. In Fall 2013, the research team met with David Mersfelder and Martin Hageman, Principal Engineers in the Harley-Davidson Product Integrity, to conduct another rigorous case review of one of our in-depth crash investigations. We reviewed case WFU-004-D involving a collision between a 1998 Yamaha V-Star 650 Classic and a
96 median cable barrier. Prior to the meeting, the Harley-Davidson team independently reviewed the case. The review of the case required about 2 hours. The review focused mainly on the dynamics of the motorcycle immediately before and during the crash.
