Safety Analysis of Extruding W-Beam Guardrail Terminal Crashes

Appendix E – Examples of Crash Cases Not Forwarded for Review by Task Force

Phase: 2A
Case # 13

Based on the information provided, it was not possible to identify the terminal, the speed of the vehicle, the orientation of the vehicle upon impact, condition of the terminal prior to impact, etc. This case was not forwarded to the Task Force.

Phase: 2A
Case # 25

The police report described this crash as a side impact. The file contained no information or photographs of the guardrail or terminal. This case was not forwarded to the Task Force.

Phase: 2A
Case # 93

This case consisted of 43 photographs of a damaged guardrail system. There was no information on the driver, the vehicle, or severity of crash. This case was not forwarded to the Task Force.

Phase: 2A
Case # 125

This case consisted of 27 photographs of a damaged guardrail system. There was no information on the driver, the vehicle, or the severity of the crash. This case was not forwarded to the Task Force.

Phase: 2A
Case # 68

This case consisted of 22 photographs of a damaged guardrail system. There was no information on the driver, the vehicle, or the severity of the crash. This case was not forwarded to the Task Force.

Phase: 3A
Case # 25

This case was not forwarded to the Task Force because it did not involve an energy-absorbing guardrail terminal.

Phase: 4D
Case # 10

The terminal could not be identified in the limited number of photographs for this crash, and the information provided was insufficient to evaluate the terminal's performance. This crash was not forwarded to the Task Force.

Phase: 4D
Case # 103

The photographs did not permit the type of terminal to be identified, and there was insufficient information to evaluate the terminal's performance. This crash was not forwarded to the Task Force.

<< Prev: Appendix D