In August, we posted a survey that received 217 responses from reconstructionists across the community. The results were interesting and I think will help Lightpoint shape our business to help the community as much as possible.
Before looking at the results, it's important to see who responded. In short, 60% of the respondents were ACTAR accredited, 40% were active LEOs, and 31% were engineers. Note, there is some overlap between these characterizations, and that's why the total is not 100%.
Now, knowing who responded, let's take a peek at the results. As expected, the vast majority (97%) of respondents utilize some sort of crush technique during the course of their analysis (traditional crush, motorcycle wheelbase reduction, impact severity analysis, etc.). 48% of the respondents currently own and use some sort of photogrammetry program.
When direct access to a damaged vehicle is possible, 69% of the respondents measure the vehicle using a tape measure, 22% use a crush jig, 62% use a total station, 29% use photogrammetry, and 24% use a laser scanner. As with above, the survey allowed selection of multiple options, for that reason, the total is not 100%.
When performing a crush analysis, 51% of the group obtains exemplar measurements by traveling to a local auto dealer, 49% obtain rough measurements from an online vehicle specification database, 56% use vehicle specifications included within a software package (which are typically derived from a vehicle specification database), and 67% use Expert Autostats.
81% of the respondents were confident that crush could be measured using photographs, while 19% were not confident in the technique. 64% of the group has measured crush from photographs in the past, and 74% has placed scene evidence (tire marks, gouges, final rest, etc.) via photographs.
Thanks for reading and to all of those that responded. If you'd like to receive information like this in the future, please subscribe to our newsletter by clicking below.
Louis R. Peck, M.S.M.E.