113 172

HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
Roadside Hazards
THURSDAY, MAY 25 , 1967
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AiD HIGHWAY
PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington , D .C .
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :16 a.m ., in room
2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A . Blatnik, chairman, presiding.
Present: Messrs. Fallon (Public Works chairman ), Blatnik (sub
committee chairman ), Kluczynski, McCarthy, Cramer, Cleveland,
McEwen , Schadeberg , Zion, McDonald , Denney, and Esch .
Staff present: (Sameas previous day.)
Mr. BLATNIK . The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High
way Program of the House Public Works Committee will please
cometo order.
At the conclusion of yesterday's session,we heard convincing testi
mony as to the existence of certain design deficiencies in our Nation 's
highways, including even some of ourmost recently completed Fed
eral-aid roads.
The conditions described by Mr. Joseph Linko, our first witness,
were limited geographically to theGreater New York area in his testi
mony because New York is where the witness lives and is, therefore,
the scene ofmost of the research he performed in his unusual and com
mendable one-man inquiry. However, as our staff investigation has
disclosed , the conditions described by Mr. Linko are varied and exist
from coast to coast.
Aswe resume our hearings today, we will hear testimony from Dr.
Donald F . Huelke, of the University of Michigan Medical School,
Ann Arbor, Mich . An associate professor of anatomy, Dr. Huelke's
interest in the cause and results of automobile crashes is of long
standing. There is a lotmore to be said about Dr. Huelke. We appre
ciate yourappearance here.
Weare very pleased to have with us our friend and colleague, Con
gressman Marvin Esch, from Ann Arbor, Mich., who is a personal
friend and associate ofour star witness of today.
Congressman, would you take over and make your presentation,
make the introduction, as you wish ?
Mr. Esch. Thank you very much , Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee.
I am honored to be before this committee. I would like to associate
myself with the remarks of the chairman and the other members
of the committee as you begin this important hearing. I am also
(167)

168
most honored to have an opportunity to introduce and to give you
a little bit more background on Dr.Huelke.
Dr. Huelke, in previous years, had a grant from the Public Health
Service to study the causes of fatal accidents. This took him through
out our own district in which he and an associate, Dr. Paul Gikas,
studied on the scene the direct cause of fatal accidents over an
extended period of time. He will speak of this work that grew out of
not only the internal factors inside of an automobile, but the external
factors in termsof road hazards that exist on our highways.
May I suggest to the members of the committee that as you hear
the expert testimony of our witness this morning, we reflect on the
need not only to develop more effective ways of planning and design
of our highway system ,but that we also look at the death traps that
exist today in the current highway system that we have,and determine
what remedies wemay make of an intermediate nature.
It was in this regard that we became more closely associated with
our witness thismorning.
There was one particular stretch of an interstate highway, I-94,
which Dr. Huelke and I called the “ death corridor," because there
was a large number of fatal accidents within a very brief section of
that highway. Subsequent to calling attention to it, we did have
emergency funds to erect a median barrier to alleviate the problem
ofcrossover of themedian strip .
Although the highway was scheduled for updating in 1969, there
may well have been 30 to 40 additional deaths during that time.
I call the attention of the committee to this illustration because
it points up the seriousness not only of our long-range planning, but
the need for us to examine the present Interstate System to bring it
up to more reasonable and safer standards, and to move in with
intermediate programs which might be needed.
Dr. Huelke, I think, has gained national prominence in the field
of highway safety and his testimony today I think will perhaps be
shocking, but perhaps will be most meaningful to you as you recog
nize the expertise which he brings to your committee.
So, Dr. Huelke, weare very pleased to have you with us today.
Dr.HUELKE. Thank you verymuch .
Mr. BLATNIK . Dr. Huelke, before you proceed , I want to certainly
express the genuine appreciation and thanks of the entire committee,
certainly the Chair, for the splendid cooperation you have given this
staff. We do feel this whole subject area is one of tremendous signifi
cance, and it is almost shocking the way this whole matter has been
overlooked for the 10 years we have been engaged in the largest
peacetime public works program in history , which is primarily de
signed to save literally thousands of lives. At least several of these
thousands were needlessly lost because ofmiscalculations or errors or,
through inadvertence, obstacles were put in places where they
greatly increased the probability of contact, of impact, of automobile
collisions.
Dr. Huelke, in your case, of course, as we do with all witnesses, we
would ask that you take the oath . Would you please stand and raise
your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth , the whole
truth ,and nothingbut thetruth ,so help youGod ?

169
Dr. HUELKE. I do.
Mr. BLATNIK . Please be seated , Doctor.
Mr.May.
Mr. W .May. Doctor, for thebenefitofthe committee,would you tell
us about your background, how you became interested in the subject
inatter.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DONALD F. HUELKE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHI
GAN MEDICAL SCHOOL, ANN ARBOR, MICH., AND CHARLES W .
PRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS,
BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, U .S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR
TATION
Dr. HUELKE. Approximately 10 years ago, I began a study on bio
mechanics of fracture production. In other words, how do bones
break. This is a very small subjectand it wasactually only to the prob
lem of the lower jaw .
Mr. W .May. Are you a medicaldoctor ?
Dr. HUELKE. No, I am not. I am a Ph. D . in anatomy. I have a
doctor's degree in human anatomy.
Mr. W .May. Did you go to school in Ann Arbor,Mich .?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes, for my Ph. D . work . I received my bachelor de
gree from the University of Illinois.
Mr. W .May. Thank you .
Dr. HUELKE. At the time I was studying fractures of the lower
jaw , one of the things we were doing was to review the clinical cases
at the hospital, and it became obvious that over 50 percent of the
fractures of the lower jaw were produced in automobile accidents.
From this beginning, I started wondering what then , in automobile
accidents is causing these typesofinjuries.
So, in order to study the effect of full body trauma, I thought that
the automobile accident would be one way to do so.
To try and save time and not have to follow every injury-producing
automobile accident, I then went out to only the fatal accidents.
We then received a grant from the U .S . Public Health Service, the
Division of Accident Prevention,which funded this project for 4 years.
The projectbegan at about November 1, 1961, and it terminated 4 years
later.
Presently I have a grant from the same source to investigate non
fatality accidents in recent model cars in which people are injured
but not killed , and so to date I have examined some 200 fatal auto
mobile accidents in which approximately 270 people were killed , and ,
in addition, close to 300 nonfatality accidents in which people have
been injured.
As an aside from this, when we get to the accident scene, we are on
call with the police 24 hours, day and night.When we get to the scene,
we are interested in determining what happened and what killed or
injured the individual.
Wetake photographs at the scene of skidmarks, the roadway, the
vehicles, and frequently of the occupants. And then , after we find out
what the autopsy results indicate was the cause of death , we go back

170
to the vehicle and start correlating the crushed chest with the steering
wheel, or ejection from the vehicle.
It became all too apparent to memany of these people were striking
the immovable objects along the edge ofthe road, which not necessarily
needed to be there, or which should have been protected in some way
by adequate protective means.
One of the things that I did notice, as Congressman Esch men
tioned , is on I -94 , around Ann Arbor. In a 4 -year period, we had
20 percent of all deaths on this I- 94 expressway with 10 percent of
the deaths due to cross-median accidents; in other words, one vehicle
crossing the grassy stretch separating the two lanes of traffic.
It was a year ago in Lansing that I testified to this point, and Con
gressman Esch was there and he was forceful enough in convincing
Governor Romney and Mr. Hill, head of the highway department,
that this is truly an emergency situation , a true death corridor ; it has
just been the last month that 7 miles of guardrail have been installed
on this expressway.And sincethe installation,there have been repeated
hits on this guardrail of vehicles out of control, attempting to cross
the median, but who have not succeeded because of this guardrail
situation .
I think it is going to be a lifesaver. I think we are going to save
between five and 10 lives a year on the 7-mile strip ofhighway because
of the guardrail installation.
Mr. W . May. How far away from your home base did you go to
analyze these accidents ?
Dr. HUELKE. Wherever the police asked me to go from our area .
Now , I am on call with the Ann Arbor Police, with the Sheriff's De
partment of Washetenaw County, and the State police at Ypsilanti.
The State police do obviously cross county lines. In travel time, the
farthest accident to the scene when I was called was 45 minutes away
at night by expressway, so this did put us out a considerable distance
from what youmightsay “homebase.”
Mr. W .MAY.Would you proceed.
Dr. HUEKLE. What I would like to do, then, thismorning is to talk
about theproblem of thehighway in termsof collision experience that
we have had, and not necessarily talk only the Federal-aid program ,
but show you the same sorts of things in secondary areas, as well. I
would like to develop this theme, then , of the immovable objects, the
obstacles,and the lack of protection which has killed many people in
our State.
So if I may have the lights out and the projector on , we could get
to the first case.
This is a police photo from an on -scene accident. The vehicle seen
in theditch was traveling toward us.
This is a secondary road. It is not paved . It is a gravel surface. But
the night before, it had rained and it came down as sleet, and then it
froze, so the highway was very slippery. Even the gravel road here

171
was covered with ice, and as the vehicle came around the turn , the
driver wastraveling too fast for conditions.
Notice I did not say he wasspeeding, because in my estimation , speed
indicates he is traveling faster than the posted limit. But this man
made the mistake of traveling a little too fast on this icy surface
around the curve, so wehave a driver error.
As he came around the curve, he slid off and went into the ditch
along the road edge.
Notice here there is no shoulder to this roadway, and notice the very
deepdrainage ditch along the road edge.
The ironic part of this thing is the fact that this is a nonfunctional
drainage ditch, its function having been lost by a subdivision that is
to the left, and in the background with service drives, making this
ditch just a deep ditch .
He went off into the ditch as you can see, and struck with the left
front fender in that area , causing the door to pop open . Hewas ejected
and was killed .
Now ,we have a problem with automotive design in that the car door
opened ; but the important thing is that had this been a relatively flat
area, he could have made his mistake I am not making any excuse
for the vehicle, but even with his mistake, he could have survived this,
accident.
The other mistake that he made is that there was a seat belt avail
able in the car. He did not wear it this day.

172
This is I- 95 Expressway near Ypsilanti, a town that is not too far
from us. Notice the roadway is a 70-mile-an -hour dual expressway.
Themedian in the center is 35 feetwide. It is flat.
At 70 miles an hour,you are traveling at 103 feet per second, and it
doesnottake you very much timeto cross a 30 -foot-widemedian.
Notice on the right side there is a lake, Ford Lakeby name, and there
is a steep embankment off the road area down to the shore of the lake.
The only protection that is offered along this segment are these pine
pillars, 6 -inch -diameter pine pillars, which can be broken off at a
vehicle speed of between 5 and 10 miles an hour.
Mr. W .May. Thereareno cablesbetween those pillars?
Dr. HUELKÉ.No,sir.
Mr. W .May. All right.
Dr. HUELKE. And one evening we did have a fatal accident at this
scene.
A woman wasdriving along when she hit this car in the rear.
A little background on this vehicle. He had stopped in Ann Arbor
late atnight, comingback from vacation with his family. Hehad "bat
tery trouble," and his muffler had gone out on him . For a small foreign
car like this, the gas station did not have a muffler. They gave him a
quick charge of his battery and he was going home in the slow speed
lane, as we saw in the other photograph, when he was struck in the
rear. This car and the other car went through those guard posts, down
to the shoreline where this car struck the two trees right at the edge
ofthewater.
The pathetic part ofthis was that the three children in the back seat
each received a fracture of one of their extremities. The father, who
was thedriver, was running around frantically throwing all the cloth
ing — that had literally exploded outof the rear of the vehicle - looking

173
for his 19-month -old boy. His wife was ejected from the car and was
on the opposite side, dead of a crushed skull, and had she stayed inside
the vehicle, she could have survived. But also, she was holding this
19-month -old baby on her lap at the time. The child was ejected with
the mother. The child landed in the water and drowned in 6 inches of
water 3 feet from the shoreline - a double ejection fatality, both of
which could have been prevented, again by automotive design .
Had an adequate guardrail been along that road edge, this would
not have been a double fatality accident. But today I want to empha
size someof the problems of the roadside.
This tree is not on the edge of the road ;this tree is in the road , and
the sign says“ Stop Ahead.” And that is what he did, and he was killed.
Ithappened at 10 o'clock on a Saturdaymorning.

174
When I was out at this scene, the farmer was working in his field
to the right, and he was strongly berating me because of the tree.
Finally I quieted him down enough to identify myself and he apolo
gized. He thought I was from the road commission. He told me that
on two separate occasions he had called the road commission to in
dicate people had struck thistree, ripped out a headlight or ripped off
a fender, and he had pleaded with them to remove the tree.
This tree was not removed , and we have a fatal crash against it be
cause it is 2 feet into theroadway.
Mr. W .May. Is that the farmer's tree ?
Dr. HUELKE. No, sir. His farmhouse is nowhere near this area , so
it is not a beautification tree for the esthetics of the farm area .
Mr. W . May. That tree is on the right-of-way of the road ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes. I then called the highway commission in our
county and asked why these trees were not removed and others like
them , trees on the outside of the curb that have been hit time and time
again ; and their answer was, “Wedon 't have the funds to do so.”
I think this is very significant, because without the funds, you can
not getthemanpower nor themachinery to remove these types of trees
thatare struck time and timeagain .
Abouta year later, I passed this scene and the tree wasmarked " For
Removal." So I called up the county commissioner and said , “ Con
gratulations. I see you have funds to remove these types of trees now ."
He said , “ Oh, no, we don't have funds; but wemust do it. Those trees
have Dutch elm disease." .
Mr. CRAMER. Hesaid what?
Dr. HUELKE. " That tree had Dutch elm disease.” Therefore, it is
being removed to stop the spread of Dutch elm disease ; but they could
not afford the money or time or manpower to remove these trees be
cause they were lethal.
Mr. W . May. Excuse me, Doctor. Mr. Prisk , do I understand Mich
igan has entered into a program of tree removal alongside the high
ways ?
Mr. Prisk . Yes.Michigan State Highway Department has started
on their trunkline system in a systematic fashion to remove trees that
are close to the road and constitute a hazard . Several hundred thou
sand trees have been removed under this program .
Dr. HUELKE. And according to Mr. McCarthy, the chief designer
of Michigan 's highway systems, he is very thankful for Dutch elm
disease,because now they have a good excuse to start taking them down ,
because before people would complain that that tree was being taken
down ; it is a nice old tree, gives a lot of shade, lot of character to the
road , and this beautification idea tends to take priority .
Now when they say it has Dutch elm disease, people are more
understanding.
Mr.CRAMER.Mr. Chairman,may I ask a question ?
Mr. BLATNIK.Mr. Cramer.
Mr. CRAMER. Does the staff know whether this is a Federal-aid
highwav or not? It does not look very much like it.
Dr. HUELKE. No, it is not ; but this is the problem we see and I
would like, if I may, to develop this point.
Mr. CRAMER. In just a moment.
Dr. HUELKE. Yes.
Mr. CRAMER.Mr. Prisk ,does the State of Michigan have a program
to plant trees for beautification purposesas well as to take them down ?
Mr. Prisk . I feel surethatthey do.

175
Mr. CRAMER. So one program is planting them and another program
is taking them down ; is that right ?
Mr. PRISK. That is right.
Mr. CRAMER. Itmakes a lot of sense.
This particular tree is on the right-of-way.Obviously,by regulation
or otherwise, it would not be permitted on a Federal-aid highway;
is that right?
Mr. PRISK . True.
Mr. CRAMER. Actually what we are dealing with is a State-county
problem , basically ?
Mr. PRISK . I would say so .
Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Thank you.
Dr. HUELKE. Last year up in Lansing, when we talked about plant
ing of trees on the outside of curves, especially, Mr. McCarthy, the
chief designer of Michigan, said, “We don't do that any more." I
had to point out to him that 15 minutes previous to my testimony,
when I was going on an exit ramp off of a Federal-aid supported
highway, I- 96 by name, in the Lansing area , the road crew was
out there planting trees on the outside of the curve at the verymoment
hesaid that this wasnot being done.
Mr. CRAMER. As Mr. Prisk indicated , that is a different program .
That is a Federal program to plant trees ; that is a different program .
Dr. HUELKE. Yes.
Mr. CRAMER. The other is a program to take them down. This is
the program to plant trees. And that is the program we have before
us now , to consider for further authorization, the program to plant
these trees.
Dr. HUELKE. I believe that it is not the problem of planting the
trees ; it is where you plant them and how close to the roadside.
The interesting thing, and this is a typicalroad, this road was a very
small trail about 20 years ago. They saw that it was being used more
frequently,so they widened it and then put a gravelsurface on it.Now
this road is being upgraded and it is blacktopped, but still all of the
roadside hazards are in place. The curves are just as flat as they have
always been , and the problem is that now we have the higher speed
roadway with all of the inherentbad characteristics ofa very primitive
road.We see this quite often .
This is an example of what I call entrapment. Twomale occupants
of a vehicle were driving on this curve one night at a relatively high

176
rate of speed when they went out of control to the right, just missing
the yellow sign in thedistance.
Here along the road edgewe have a very narrow drainage ditch and
the right wheels of the vehicle became entrapped in this ditch and
now are leading them on a collision course to the trees in the far
distance. This is what will happen if you have a narrow type of ditch ;
it can be a trap to take the vehicle onward to other types of obstacles.
*

177
And as we approach the trees, theditch becomes steeper,the slope is
stronger,and they struck the trees and bounded back into the roadway.
And here we see the fatality in the rear seat.He was actually the
driver,by the way. Heended up in the rear seat of the automobile.

178
Another hazard,which is supposed to be a protective device. Thisis a tightright-hand curve,which is a feederroad to oneoftheexpress
ways, and in thebackground — actually,up above off ofthe screen, you
see the chain-link fencing between the pine pillars. They went off the
road, hit this,and this led them on a collision course directly to thetree.

179
You can see the impact point and the lack of adequate supports of
the guardrailand the chain -link fencing.

180
Another example ofhazardsclose to the road. This happensto beone we had of a salesman driving home one night from Ann Arbor
when he cameoff this crest oftheroad.Notice the characteristic of the
road edge here. It is very badly chewed up.His wheel got off on this
area.Hetried to bring the carback to the roadway,buthewentdown
the steep embankment,aswecan seebythetracksin thedistance,and
ITAI

181
struck a group oftreesthat were fairly far from the road edge. Once he
was on this downhill embankment, there was no possibility of a return
to the roadway.
This is his vehicle. Hewas alone in the car,but the windshield and
the side window support damage was done by his head for lack of
restraint.
Mr. CRAMER. Go back to the tree hehit.
Dr. HUELKE.Actually,you see the series of treeshere [indicating ].
Mr. CRAMER. Oh ,yes.
Dr. HUELKE. And they were about 30 feet off of the roadway. But
the important point is this down slope is so close to the road edge that
leadshim on the collision course.
(Atthis point,Mr. Kluczynskiassumed the chair.)
Mr. CRAMER. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Prisk. You indi
cated yesterday, did you not, that the Federal regulation relating to
planting trees, although presently not being observed in many in
stances, is supposedly to plant them beyond 30 feet from the highway
itself or the right-of-way ? Which is it ?
Mr. PRISK . That is beyond the edge ofthe pavement.
Mr. CRAMER. Right. So if the witness' testimony is correct, as to
distance, which I assume it is, this tree that caused this problem
would not be prohibited under Federal regulations presently in exist
ence ; is that right?
Mr. PRISK .So longasit is inside 30 feet, that is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. So long as it is planted outside 30 feet ?
Mr. PRISK . Outside 30 feet,yes.
Mr. CRAMER. So, so far as beautification is concerned , the planting
of trees, there would be nothing to prohibit the duplication of this
problem ?

182
Ainarike,men.Thankyou typicalroads mothe apex
and secon) just beyle). Thisg peopleneed
Mr. PRISK .Well, I think that I should say
Mr. CRAMER . I mean, so far as the distance is concerned ? Down
grade is another question .
Mr. Prisk . This is a minimum requirement, the 30 feet. We do not
ordinarily object to planting trees beyond that distance.
Mr. CRAMER . Thank you,Mr. Chairman .
Dr. HUELKE. Here is a typical example of what we see at express
way exit ramps and secondary roads more frequently in our area .
But notice the tree (arrow ) just beyond the apex of the curve, and
you can see it was recently hit (circle ). This is a photo taken the
following day after the accident. Three young people were driving
down this downhill, left-hand curve and struck this tree. These are
the sorts of trees now that they are removing as hazards, but we see
this timeand timeagain .
it was remenaccident. Three struck this tree.but we
31
Mr. CRAMER. I see there are three old trees and I see a new one in
themiddle, just planted . It looks like a tree.
Dr. HUELKE. There is a series of them along there, new ones.
Mr. CRAMER. It must be part of the beautification program . They
are taking down the old trees and putting up new ones ?
Dr. HUELKE. Planting a little farther back, though , about five
Mr. CRAMER. A little farther back . As far as the curve is concerned ,
it looks pretty close to the new ones they are planting.
Dr. HUELKE. Yes, sir ; I think about five
Mr. CRAMER. That provides a hazard to some degree. That cer
tainly is notthe place to plant a tree, is it ?
Dr.HUELKE. That is right.
Mr. CRAMER. Right around a curve, right in line with the travel
of the car if it gets off the road, right?
Dr. HUELKE. Right. And Í see no problem in planting of shrubs
or bushes in this area for beautification , because they are very absorb
ing,as a matterof fact, as far as impact attenuation.
The trees today that are smalland little saplings are attractive, but
in 10 years
Mr.CRAMER. Where isthis located ?
Dr.HUELKE. Outside of Ann Arbor.
Mr. CRAMER . What system ?
Dr. HUELKE. This is a road that is nearby an expressway. Actually
it has only a street name to it, but it is used for high -speed travel.
Righttheroad,rightno problem inhey are very

183
Mr. CRAMER. It is interesting to me because there they plant the
tree, and that is going to obscure one of the prettiest little lakes I have
seen in some time, beautifully landscaped. It just does not seem to
makemuch sense to me from the standpoint of safety or beauty. Of
course, that is notyour field.
Dr. HUELKE. And this is the on -scene photograph at the time.
Now , this is part of the Michigan highway clearance pro
gram . You see that they did remove this tree— but they forgot to
remove the tree stump.Onenightduring the deer hunting season, three
men were driving in a vehicle, they lost control, went off of the road
way — and this tree stump is 15 feet from the road edge — and the driver
was killed. So here is a partial job of tree removal for safety and for
other reasons,butthey forgotto remove probably the most important
partofthe tree.
SC
This is a typical treatment that we see on secondary roads, and fre
quently, as I will point out, on the new expressways ; an almost bare
end ofthe bridge railing, and this sign was just a diagonal sign to in
dicate there was an obstacle ahead,which anyone could see probably
moreclearlythan thesign itself.

184
The sign was mounted on a breakaway wooden post that absorbed
none ofthe energy.
And this is the on -scene photograph of what happened. Themother
was seriously injured and her baby that she held on her lap waskilled.
The driver had moderate to serious injuries and the child in the rear
seat wasnot injured at all.

185
But the importantthing is that something should be done to protect
against these sorts ofthings, whether it is on a secondary road or not.
SPEED
LIMIT
MA
.
45
.
Now , this is the expressway system in the east part of Ann Arbor.
We are on one of the roads that pass through the city, Washtenaw
Avenueby name,and early one Saturday afternoon — a shopping center
is just off the screen to our left — a women who was driving homesaw
her neighbor at the shopping center and asked the neighbor if she
would like a ride home,and the neighbor said yes. They traveled down
this roadway — you can still see some of the snow. She lost control
under this overpass complex and skidded — nothitting the first bridge
pier,but, as you will see — went into the second bridge pier, and the

186
wasactual
more en planthere
neighbor waskilled . The driver wasnot injured .
Mr. W .May.Have you any idea how fast shewasmoving ?
Dr. HUELKE. This is an impact speed of, I would say, approxi
mately 30 to 35miles an hour.
Now look close I was actually standing on the road to take this
photograph — there is no protection , no guardrail. This pillar is no
more than 10 to 12 feet from the curbing. This is one of the newer
expressway systemsin our area.
Now , this is I -94 in the Ann Arbor area. Ann Arbor actually is
located up in this region [indicating], and each spot on this 20-mile
stretch of expressway indicates a fatal accident and, in the circles,
thenumber of peoplekilled.
You see, we get a spread in through here. This is not a heavily
traveled area (indicating] but here, because Detroit is to the right
[ indicating) on the photograph, we have a lot of heavy traffic located
around the Willow Run area,airport, Ypsilanti.
And notice on this one curve, specifically here; one killed, two
killed , one killed, one killed — just piled in this area (indicating ).
And this is the “death corridor” that Congressman Esch and I
were complaining about on the I -94 expressway.
This is a very interesting case. We see the guardrail over on the
left side where it looks like it is a very functional guardrail,but notice
the exposed end - -and this is extremely important.
DES

188
This is what we found one night. Two college students were travel
ing on this expressway when they hit the end of that guardrail. This
car is now 144 feet into the guardrail. There are 144 feet behind them
from where they first hit that guardrail. And so we have to think of
protecting the ends ofthose guardrails.
I recommend a sloping end buried firmly into the ground to prevent
this type of accident from occurring.
The passenger was killed.
This isthe front view ofthe car.

189
This was a nighttimeaccident. The vehicle was traveling toward us
in the upper left lane,but the driver fell asleep,cameacross theme
a barnaby
87 -757 0 — 68— 13

190
dian,and instead ofstayingon thatside —there wasnotrafficaroundhe tried to get back to his proper lane. You see, over here on the
right.Hethen came from behind the guardrailand struck it, deform
.
DO
.
se

191
ing the guardrail. You see the end is way over here. This caused his
car to roll over. Hewaskilled .

192
This is another accident on I-94. Notice that in some instances in
this area, we do put signs up on the overpass railing.
Meju mejuwen inneju h timine on me
.
This man was traveling at about 80 miles an hour one night when
he hit the end of this guardrail, but his car jumped up on the guard
rail. The guardrail then led him on the collision course to these bridge
piers.
See how hedamaged the end of theguardrails.
-

193
And here is his car,almost completely ripped in half. Hewas killed.
The guardrail has been replaced in the identicalmanner as it was
before the accident. This would have been a proper time to extend the
guardrail for an adequate length , to bury the end of the guardrail,and
to do a good job at the time of repair and replacement.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman , may I inquire of the witness ?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Doctor, have you formed any opinion as you study
these accidents as to how many of them would have been avoided
had the design been proper, proper in your opinion ? In other words,
apparently a lot of these accidents involved high speed or involved
going to sleep,or other driver error.
Dr.HUELKE. And alcohol.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Did you evolve any tentative hypothesis as to how
many would have been avoided if these safety devices had been
proper ?
Dr.HUELKE. On theroadway only. I am just talking about the road
way safety factors, rather than car safety factors, or alcohol.
If we just talk about roadway clearance, in our area, a significant
number of these people would not have hit these obstacles. But in the
report which I will submit thatwe published in the Highway Research
Board proceedings, the figure is estimated at about 15,000 to 16 ,000
lives a year that could possibly be saved if we would get rid of these
types ofobstacles.
Mr. CLEVELAND. My question is , you showed us a slide of that car
thathit the tree stump; now , if that tree stumphad not been there, the
picture did not show ,buttheremighthave been another tree farther on.
Would he have been going fast enough to hit the other tree ? Or there
mighthave been a ditch, and hemighthave rolled over. There might
have been a fatality, anyway. This is all conjecture.

194
Dr. HUELKE. Yes, I see your point. What we find is so frequently
beyond that tree line, at the road edge, there is a clear field . So if the
tree were not there, that the individual struck, the angle of approach
to the tree would be such that he would have continued out into the
open field.
Mr.CLEVELAND.Eventually slowing down ?
Dr.HUELKE. Yes.
Mr.CLEVELAND. Thank you.
Dr. HUELKE. Now , there are many factors leading to automobile
accidents. Alcohol has been shown to be related to automobile acci
dents and fatalities, specifically in probably 50 percent ofthe cases. But
it ismy feeling that up to now ,although generally thehighway designer
has done an excellent job on these expressway systems— rounding the
curves; good stable bridge piers, the bridges do not collapse ; good
roadways for heavy traffic — but it almost seems the philosophy has
been, “Leavemy paved surface, and you have to put up with what
ever is there and it is your own fault."
Now , cars will leave the paved surface. Whether the man is in
toxicated, or whether the individualgoes to sleep, whether he is under
medication, loses control because of ice, snow , or fog, or maybe an
other car hits him , driving him into this off-road area, I do not think
that the individual should then suffer because he is not on the pave
ment, and that what we should do is give more concentration to the
off-road areas.
This is the I-94 expressway. One day a woman,who had just picked
her husband up from the airport, was at the position where this truck
is [indicating). Another truck coming in the opposite direction was
pulling a trailer. The trailerhook broke,because ofmetal fatigue ; the
trailer crossed this flat 35 -foot-wide median and struck the car killing
thewoman who had justmetherhusband.
SA

195
This is the same scene now , showing this double guardrail systemthat goes on and on into the distance. There is 7 miles of it. We will
not see cross median accidents in this area any more, and I am sure
that this is a truly lifesaving construction area.
This is another expressway in the Ann Arbor area and the "Exit”
sign is wellmarked. The gore area behind it is fairly clear. Although
this one is fairly clear, they often seem to just dumtp the earth in there
and flatten it a little bit and this is quite hilly. It is not as flat as this
area to the right of the roadway [indicating], as I will show you in
someother pictures.
8
NU
SON
LISTEN
ORIE

196
This is the bridge thatwesaw in the background— letme point this
out to you.Here it is at a very gentle curve.
Look at the design of this bridge. It is for esthetics more than any
thing else.Wehave an 8-inch curb. Wehave a sidewalk . It is illegal
to walk on the expresswaysofMichigan,yet westill see these sidewalks.
Notice the impact damage to the end of this bridge rail. Notice that
the guardrail ends there instead ofbeing wrapped around.
One early morning a fellow did comealong there, he got snagged at
the very end of it and ripped his car apart and he was killed. It could
have been prevented had this bridge rail and guardrail system been
adequately designed for the vehicle to slide along it.
AN

197
Notice that here is the edge of the roadway, and this setback is
probably 10 feet or so ſindicating], but this is a very inadequate de
sign. There are many protuberances sticking out all along here. If you
miss the first one, you have the second and the third .
This wasbuilt at the time that there had been publications in high
way literature on a bridge rail design.
This is an expressway turnoffwellmarked, heavily signed. There is
inadequate guardrailing around the base of the signpost. But 1 day
the individual did make this turn, a 17-year-old young man drivinghis parents in a brand new car,and he swung a little wide. You cannot
.
1
21
really see it, butthe road edge is right here [indicating], along here.
Heswung wideand got into thisarea
3

198
It had snowed during the night. He skidded along the guardrail,
which performed like it should ; it held, it kept him on track - but the
thing is that a few of the legs in here (indicating ],near this end, were
loose. The car snagged on the guardrail. It then spun around and the
left rear door hit the cementmonolith , here at the end of the guard
rail, crushing the door in , killing the father in the rear seat, and the
mother in the rear seatwas ejected out the opposite door and down this
embankment. She suffered serious injuries.
Had we had these legs implanted more strongly so that it would not
rock and snag the car, and possibly the overlap of guardrail over the
end here (indicating ], this possibly would not have been a fatal acci
dent.
This is the side impact against the door next to which the father was
seated.
I am standing under an overpass. This isan expressway again. This
car (at right in photo ) wentout of control one early morning. He was

199
towing another vehicle. You can see the tracksas he came sliding side
ways into the exposed end of this very short section of guardrail,
which crushed in the door,killing the driver,
The passenger in the rear seat and the passenger in the front seat
did not receiveany injuries.
This was repaired in the identicalmanner to the way it had been
set up before the impact.
And this is an overview from the overpass.Noticethat heonly took
off about one or possibly two support legs, crumbling the guardrail.

200
Had this end been buried, this individual would not have sustained
fatal injuries.
Here is an expressway,again a fairly nice clear area here [indicating], so that if you go off the roadway in this area, you have no
trouble whatsoever. Beyond thetruck there is a drainage ditch.
DO
SELLE
3
A vehicle knocked down a reflector sign,went straight on towardthe ditch, and then hit this part (arrow ) ofthe retainer wall— which
flipped it up into the air. He completely catapulted across the ditch,
landing on thetop of the roof; then thecar (circle) rolled over. Hewaskilled .
Therearedata available to indicatethe angle atwhich vehicles leave
the roadway, especially expressway-type systems. Using that type of
information, a more adequate guardrail could have been constructed
2

201
along here to prevent that very shallow approach from leaving theexpressway.
Mr. W . May. You are suggesting that guardrail should have been
extended toward us ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes, very definitely ; because we see that this is a very
shallow approach . This is a car that went out of control and almost
left at right angles to the roadway. In fact, I have never seen an ac
cident quite like that. But it appears many of the guardrails are put
in with that in mind, that the car is going to come at right angles to
the road system .
This is a very shallow angle at which this vehicle left,maybe 15° or
so. If that is shown and theknown speed of a vehicle - remember, it
is legal along here to travel 70 miles an hour — wehave to think of the
deceleration distancesand it is notadequate in this area.
Mr. W .May. Aswe travel in the country, we notice this is not an
uncommon situation.
Mr. Prisk, do you have any idea why we so frequently see the
guardrails really beginning too late to prevent themotorist from go
ing down an embankment into a hazard !
Mr. PRISK . I suspect that some of these determinations as to guard
rail locations may be based strictly upon the height of the fill at the
point where the guardrail starts and not appropriately take into ac
count the dynamics of the situation ; the fact that in order to get be
hind the guardrail, you necessarily would leave the road at some dis
tance ahead of the pointwhere the fillbecomes high.
Mr. W .May. Yes, that has been our observation. So frequently , they
have certain warrants for the installation of guardrails,the slope is a
certain height,a certain type slope; three to one,two to one,that calls
for a piece of guardrail. But so frequently they begin the guardrail at
that point where it meets the warrant instead of coming back here
and beginning it long before the motorist is apt to reach the hazard .
Doctor, you may proceed.
Dr. HUELKE. This isthe edge that he caught on to cause the car to
flip over.
N
NOVER
ADES
138

202
This is a very shallow creek, by the way, that passes underneaththis location .
One ofthe concepts thathas been advocated for an area like this is:Is it really necessary for drainage ditches that pass beneath express
way system to remain open ? Why not enclose them for 30, 40, or pos
sibly 50 feet away from the road edge ? So that if this, for example,
had been covered over and this individual had gone into the area, he
would nothave had the strong deceleration forces applied to the ve
hicle to cause it to flip overand forhim tobekilled.
This iswhatthecar looked like.
IND
NOMI
ON
Now ,here we see a typical sign on the expressway system ,at least
in Michigan. These are8-inch I-beams,support posts,imbedded firmlyin concrete ; and look atthe guardrail we have adjacent to it.

203
First ofall,this guardrail is so short in length that if you did crash
into it by leaving the roadway, you could run over it and you could
hit that left leg of the pole, anyway. But notice that even the right
leg is not protected. And they say, “Well,wedo not have to protect it
because no onehits these things."
Well,here is a very extensive guardrail; this goes all the way along
that curve. Look where the sign was placed for this, right at the be
DU

204
ginning of the guardrail,so the left leg is protected,but the right legis not.
Now , this sign that was on here told us where the Flint exit was,
and the Flint exit is about 2 miles away yet. So if this sign had been
moved maybe 20 feet farther down the road, it would have been com
pletely protected by the guardrail- butyet, here it is.
You see, this individual left the roadway, again at a very shallow
angle, striking this reflector post. This is the right tire track leading
to thisguardrail leg.
A longshotshowsyou how shallow thisangle wasofhisapproach to
theleg.
Here is theon-scenephotograph. It is very difficult to explain what
wehave gothere,but Iwilltry. Behind the officer is the guardrail and
1
A
L
ON
INVESTI
TIESA

205
the road is beyond it. This is the engine area. This is a Pontiac convertible. The front bucket seat is fused to the rear seat. The post
was knocked over atmaybe -not even a 45-degree angle. The engine
is 65 feet in frontofthe car. And the instrument panel is parallelwith
the left sideofthe car. Thedriverwas foundkilled.
This is obviously an immovable object, which literally just sliced
through the car, causing the death of the driver.
Had this sign been set back 20 to 30 feet, this individualwould havegone down that relatively smooth embankment for a considerable dis
tance, but it could have been a survivable, off-the-road situation.
This gives you a better idea of what the car looked like.Notice the
frontbucket seat here fused into the rear area, instrument panels all
along this left side ofthe car.
A fatal accident. It is interesting to note thatboth of these sign
legs were taken down and now wedo not know where the Flintexit is
anymore,because they neverbothered to replace it.
OR
OM
PR
87–757 0 – 68 - 14

206
Here is a brand new expressway with a fairly tight curve in it.One
night three boys went off the road here, nipped the end of the guard
rail (arrow ), getting behind the guardrail, hit the very end of the
bridgepillar, and the car then continued up in this V area and through
it, and then rolled over.One boy was killed. But look at the direct line
sedado savo vietovdo in
her stashah . S udad
Fo t osesinden doleynlerard web
SE OVDE
todon
TI
10

207
that would take you into this heavy mud embankment, and note that
the short segment of guardrail is not adequate for protection against
that type of bridge pier.
Mr. W .May. Mr. Prisk, is that a proper installation of the guard
rail ?
Mr. PRISK.Mr.May, I think that would be pretty hard to defend
on the basis of the experience that has been had with short sections of
guardrail and the fact that the end is exposed — that very definitely
could easily be folded back into the bank and anchored so as to give
a smooth transition .
Mr. McDONALD . Mr. Chairman ?
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Yes, Mr. McDonald .
Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Prisk , who would determine whether or not
that was a proper guardrail installation ?
Mr. PRISK. That is one of the tasks that falls on our division engi
neer organization in the Bureau of Public Roads, to review State high
way plans for construction. A review of details of this sort is some
times sacrificed because of the volume of work going through.
I think also that there has been some lack of appreciation of the
importance safetywise of appurtenances to the highway that do not
cost very much money, but which do have an important operational
effect.
Mr.MoDONALD. Mr. Prisk, in the Bureau of Public Roads, is there
any such division as a safety division that would just look at these
plans when they are submitted to determine whether or not we are
building hazards into thehighway system ?
Mr. PRISK. Notspecifically for that purpose. Our engineering review
is for a greatmany other factors in addition to safety, and there is no
exclusive concern for safety in our review of highway plans.
Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Prisk , do you think that there should be a
particular division or group that would look at these plans with
having only the safety thought in mind in order to coordinate the
work of the engineers, who are more interested , really, in seeing
traffic move and perhaps have not given enough thought to the safety
ofthevehicle and the driver on thehighway ?
Mr. PRISK . I think that is a very good suggestion. The whole matter
of an operational review of the plans, I am afraid , is not performed
as well as it could be under the present circumstances.
A great dealof theattention is given to the structure of the highway
and the construction process itself probably receives first attention .
Mr.McDonalD .Mr. Prisk , do you think it would be in line, perhaps,
to require that each State, in the preparation of their plans for the
highways, have a safety department or safety engineer to look over
the plans; and then at the Federal level, the Bureau of Public Roads,
to have a safety division to look over the plans for these new highways
in order to determine whether or not the engineers have done a
suitable job in construction of thehighwayas related to safety matters ?
Mr. PRISK. I think this function that you are describing must be
strengthened .

208
Mr.McDonald.Well, let meask the question again. Do you think
each State should be required to have such a division or a safety
engineer look over these plans ? And do you feel, then , at the Bureau
of Public Roads division level, we should have a safety division or
safety engineers looking at the overall plan of highway design, keep
ing in mind safety only, coordinating the efforts oftheother engineers ?
Mr. Prisk. Part of this, I think , is perhaps a little more complex
a task than seems to be evident on the surface, because there are so
many different things that contribute to safety. I think that you need
the wisdom of bridge engineers, for example, and some of the back
ground from their discipline to get a fully safe highway.
We need some contribution from the maintenance engineer, who
sees the highway in day-to-day use, and you certainly need the advice
of the traffic engineer, who is concerned primarily with operating
problemsand the skillsofthe design engineer.
Whether you could wrap this all up in one man or one division,
and have such a unit function in every State highway department
and require that as a part of ongoing operations, I think perhaps
would take a little more study. But I do agree that it is highly
important that it be done, that we get on with the task of finding out
how best to accomplish that particular job .
Mr.McDONALD . Mr. Prisk , it seems to me we have not done too good
a job, from the testimony we have seen and heard today and that we
have seen before, in our highway design ,as far as the safety of vehicle
and driver is concerned . I think we need someone at the State level
to police this highway design
Certainly , we can build very good bridges. Wecan see that in these
photos, but unfortunately we have not given very much thought to
what happens to a driver when we have these piers so close to the
highway. I think we need some group or some people at the State or
Federal level to police this safety when we design our highways.
Mr. PRISK . I agree.
Mr.McDONALD. Thank you ,Mr.Chairman.
Mr. W .May. Doctor,you may resume.
Dr. HUELKE. Thank you. It is interesting to me that several laws
specify that the automobile industry must show compliance, that
their vehicles are safe and meet the law .
But we do not have anything about safety compliance, as such , for
impact purposes on the design of bridge rails, guardrails, and other
things ofthat sort. It is an idea .
This is the area where this car,as I was saying, went through. He
got behind the guardrail, hit the first bridge here (arrow ) then the
car skidded up into that triangular area and out beyond, and then
rolled over.
You cannot tell which end is which here, actually, the car was so
badly deformed ,but this is the left rear tire [indicating). When a car
strikes something like a bridge column or another relatively immov
able object, the car deforms and usually what happens is collapse
and compromise of the occupant space, and this is what kills the in
dividuals.
This is a very interesting signing on I-94. You are driving along,
you are a stranger, you never have been here before, and now all of a
sudden you come up to this area . You are doing 70 miles an hour to
keep up with traffic. And here it says "Huron River Drive Exit, 1

210
Mile” ; “Haggerty Road.” Which way do you go, to go through the
area ? Even I, being an experienced driver on this expressway, have at
times taken this wrong one, which is not the through expressway.
This isan exit ramp, to the right.
They knew there was such a confused area here, they have taken
down this one sign that says "Huron River Drive.” All you know
now is “ Haggerty Road,” and you assume the other is the expressway.
But a little bit farther down, this is what they have done. Almost
all the way in the area they have put the shield of the expressway
system on the sign.Why did they not do that back half a mile ?
HURON RIVER DR
KEEP LEFT
EXPRESSWAY
KEEP RIGHT
But as weapproach this area - see, “Expressway" here you keep
right to go on the expressway;but a quarter ofa mile back ,you had to
keep left to keep on the freeway. This gets confusing.
Oneday aman did get confused atthis very point.
He was riding along on the left side as hehad been doing, because it
was a left-hand curve before. He realized he was going wrong and he
cut across in front of this exit sign in here [ indicating ], but now his
car was out of control.. There is a curve along here. It is a curve at
about a 45° angle, so it is like a ramp. When his car hit that, it was
enough to flip the vehicle over.
You see there is very minor damage in comparison to some of the
vehicles you have seen today involved in fatal accidents, but thisman
was ejected from his vehicle and was found with the left front tire on
his chest, with the weight of the car on it, and he died of a crushed
chest. This was witnessed by about five people.
Indecision . He did not know which way to go. He finally decided
which way to go and he went thatway, but the car was traveling too
fast.He had a problem .
More adequate signing, I think,and proper signingthere to alleviate
the confusion would have been helpful."

211
EXIT
NE
Mr. W .May. Doctor, you havebrought up another subject we aregoing to go into in some detail later in thehearing; thematter ofsigning, continuously advising themotorist, particularly which turn
tomaketo stay on thethroughway.
SEN
.
MA
11
.
1
.
207392

212
Dr. HUELKE. This is an expressway exit. You can see the cars com
ing off the expressway back here, and this is a very confusing area .
There are about four or five different roads coming into this region
and the only indication that a driver has that he should not go on this
are these two signs (see arrows] on each side of the roadway which
say “ Do not enterone way." There are one-way arrow signs, but
they are placed so far away from this exit ramp that they are difficult
to see.
One night a man came along here wanting to go toward Ann Arbor
and he thought this was the road. He got onto the exit ramp and from
this point on after he had missed these signs, there is no further indi
cation that this is an exit, not an entrance ; he accelerated , and by the
time he had gotten up to the expressway, he was probably doing 60
to 70 miles an hour when he hit a car with teenagers in it here [indi
cating]. This was a quadruple fatality accident, wrong way on the
expressway, and this is how he got on.
Notice there is a signpost here for the drivers who comeoff in this
direction ; another sign could have easily been placed here saying,
" Stop, Wrong Way,” or something like that. And maybe even another
one on this side,giving him multiple chances to correct themistake that
he had made.
Mr. W .May. Is that the manner in which most of the interchanges
are signed ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes, sir. We are lucky, even to have the" wrong way"
sign here. Someofthem do not have these.
Now , this is a brand new bypass expressway system around Ann
Arbor, and I would like to show you thatthere is hope yet. It appears
that thought is being seriously given to someof these areas.

213
Notice this broad, flat, smooth area extending for probably 200feetoffofthe roadarea. This is a nice clean area if a vehiclewould tend
to leavetheroad surface and go off intohere.
SER
Farther on, on the sameexpressway,however, we get this. This isa gravel pit that was used when this road was being built. It is nolonger being used to any extent, but yet it is there. There is a barri
cade over here so you cannot get through. But notice what wouldhappen if a vehicle would go off into this cleararea;notice the earthenembankment that the car could strike and the deceleration on the
.
CL

214
vehicle would be the same as if the car would strike the bridge pier.
These earthen embankmentsare serious. 176 sotto
Mr. W .May. Is it an interstate highway ? na svest
Dr.HUELKE. Yes ; thebypass around Ann Arbor.
Mr. W .May.Mr. Prisk ,this is a situation thatshould have been given
attention . Weare supposed to have controlled-access highways. When
weallow temporary roadslikethis to remain in existence
Mr. PRISK . Yes , it could be a violation of access. It appears from
Dr. Huelke's photograph that there is a drainage culvert under that
roadway also. I would expect that that entireslope could be graded to a
safe section , safe cross section ,with a little effort.
Mr. W .May. Thank you.
Dr. HUELKE. As we proceed farther on the roadway, we see that
here the trees are fairly well cleared back. This is going back maybe
50 feetor so,but only a few hundred yards farther down the roadway,
we see that the trees are very, very close to the road area. So here we
have differences on the clearance of the trees; and these trees are, as I
have shown before, quite hazardous.
Here, again, we have a very clear offroad area, but look at that
lone tree sitting out there, and that treemeasures at least 28 feet from
theedge ofthe road .
Mr. W .May.Mr. Prisk, thatwater we see,does that present a prob
lem ?
Mr. PRISK. Yes. A vehicle would not go through very much water
without turning over or otherwise going through an abrupt de
celeration ,which could cause injury, at least.
Mr. W .May. Thank you.
Dr. HUELKE. Now here the road clearance — there are no trees, but
notice the high earthen embankment that is less than 20 feet from

215
-
this edge of the offroad area (indicating). And, again , whether it is
trees or retainer walls, or what have you, this can be just as serious
for impact, and obviously the proper grade is not there to allow a
vehicle to go up that grade without striking directly onto it.
Mr. W .May. I see a fence at the top of that high slope. Would that
indicate that is the end of the right-of-way line,Mr. Prisk ?
Mr. PRISK . I would suspect so , yes; in which case it would bedifficult
to do much with that slope unless a slope easement was obtained .

216
Mr. W .May. This brings up another problem in another section
of the highway fraternity that must come into play when they are
attempting to design safe highways, the right-of-way section . Those
people could determine how much right-of-way they want, into which
the designers must build their road. If you buy only that much right
of-way and then force the designer to build within it, youmay end up
with something likethis; right ?
Mr. PRISK . Right.
Dr.HUELKE. Å little bit farther on. Sameroadway.Wesee wehave
a very nice, clear, flat area going quite a considerable distance away
from the road edge; but then again, if we get out here and do travel
that far, the heavy earthen embankment beyond .
Here, however, less than a quarter of a mile down the roadway, is a
perfect example ofa clean offroad area. So this one stretch of roadway

217
in this area is only 5 miles long ; it is a bypass system , and it has some
beautiful offroad areas where serious concentrations, I think, were
given ; also right next to them are some of the worst hazards possible
ifyou can say that.
Mr. W . May. Doctor, as I understand it, you have analyzed some
200 fatal accidents since November 1961?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes, sir.
Mr. W . May. In which 270 people were killed in those accidents ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes.
Mr. W . May. In addition to that, you have analyzed some 300 non
fatal accidents ?
Dr. HUELKE. That is correct.
Mr. W . May. Were there injuries in each ofthose ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes.All injury accidents in those 300 .
Mr. W . May. In your study as it existed up to and as of January 1,
1965, you made some analysis. You submitted a paper to the High
way Research Board ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes, sir.
Mr. W . May. I was struck with some sections of your report. You
say :
As of January 1, 1965, we investigated 111 accidents in which 146 occupants
were killed. No motorcyclists, trucks, or truck accidents were included in that.
Later you say :
If an individual is going to lose control of his vehicle for any reason, the road
way must be designed to prevent cross-median accidents and obstacles must be
removed from the roadside so that serious or fatal injuries will not occur. In this
study, 84 percent of the accidents were nonintersectional collisions, with a major
ity, 60 percent, being single-car, off-road collisions.
That is a pretty high percentage when you consider that the acci
dents that you have analyzed occurred on all types of roads?
Dr.HUELKE. Yes.
Mr. W . May. Expressways, rural type roads, primary type roads ?
Dr. HUELKE. I think the point to emphasize here is that it is not
always a two-car collision , but more frequently a single car off the
road. And in this day and age with the traffic safetymovement, I think
that no matter how much or how many types of safety specifications
Dr. Haddon gets through the legislature onto the vehicle, that many
of these safety features will be useless when you put a car into a bridge
pier or into a tree,or a retaining wall, that is close to the road edge.
If we are truly sincere in trying to save lives on the highway, we not
only have to approach the vehicle, but we must do a concentrated
effort on the highway system , lest the vehicle strike these things
anyway.
(Atthis pointMr.McCarthy assumed the chair.)
Mr. W . May. Yes. Also as a point of interest, later in your report
you mentioned , in 21 cases,more than one roadway hazard that should
be considered important. Most obvious hazards are indicated in the
first. However, other obstacles or design factors play an important
part in fatal accidents. For example, you treat “ ditch combination "
situationswhich you showed earlier.
You have made a couple of tables captioned “ Type of Fatal AC
cidents, Objects Causing Fatalities.” These are all single-car collisions.

218
olook atthese butment,five;Fitch," eight:
n°111
It is interesting to look at these statistics and analyze 111 accidents :
Treo or utility pole, 35 ; bridge abutment, five ; guardrail, four; earth
embankment, four. You say " roll over due to ditch," eight; slope or
embankment, six ; lost control on roadway, five; subtotal of 67 in 111
accidents.
You talk of car-to -car collisions: Intersection, 18 ; crossmedian, 10 ;
cross center line, 10 ; rear end, six ; for a subtotal of44 .
Statistics can be meaningful. Mr. Kopecky made an analysis of
your data and he analyzed the study the Bureau ofPublic Roadsmade
of fatal accidents on the completed Interstate System during the third
quarter of 1966, and took the study the Bureau of Public Roadsmade
in the last 6 months of 1966 on the Interstate System , and California 's
freeway fatal studiesmade in 1961, 1962, 1964, and 1965.
We were struck with the similarity of the figures. For example, for
single vehicles that ran off the road,the Bureau ofPublic Roads' third
quarter study showed 59 percent; the Bureau's 6 -month study,57 per
cent; Dr. Huelke, 60 percent; California , 50 percent.
Second, a vehicle ran off the road and subsequently struck a fixed
object: Bureau of Public Roads' third quarter, 73 percent; Bureau of
Public Roads 6-month , 78 percent; Dr.Huelke,72 percent; California ,
67 percent.
Ålso type of fixed objects struck - guardrail: Bureau of Public
Roads' third quarter, 34 percent; 6 -month study, 33 percent; Cali
fornia, 25 percent.
Bridge abutment or a pier : 18 percent, 21 percent, 22 percent.
Sign support : 11 percent, 10 percent, 9 percent.
Tree : 4 percent, 3 percent,and 3 percent.
This covers various sections of the country, the interstate study of
the total country ; yet the percentages are quite comparable.
Dr. HUELKE. I think the important thing here is, we have seen this
in other areas of the traffic safetymovement.
For example, alcohol: So many people have done studies on drink
ing and driving, that there are more data than will ever be needed
to show that alcohol is highly related to automobile accidents. Yet one
of the States that I know of just last year had to run a whole series of
the alcohol investigation program in their State because they did not
believe the data from these other States.
Now , what I am getting at is that it looks like all these data you
just mentioned on the highway design problems are in agreement
across the country. I do not think there is need for continuing to get
more and more data , making reams and reams of reports. We know
it is a problem now . Let's get an action program going to do something
about it.
Mr.McDonald.Mr.Chairman ?
Mr.McCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD . I would like to make a statement for the record .
The Federal-aid highway program has been in existence for 51 years,
without adequate attention being given to safety off the traveled road
way, which would indicate to me that the Congress may need to re
quire appropriate review of the plans in this regard . Perhaps some
action should be taken in the near future to see to it that this require
ment is made part of the law .

219
Mr.McCARTHY. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his statement.
Doctor, I would like to ask you, you alluded to the ample data
that are available on the problem of alcohol-driving accidents. Why
do you think it is that this ample data did not result in appropriate
legislation ?
Dr.HUELKE. Because it has recently been shown, using our data no
less,by Dr. Seltzer, a psychiatrist at the Universty of Michigan , that
in the first hundred accidents, of thedrivers that were at fault - if you
are alone and go into a tree, he considers you at fault – 50 percent of
these people, from our data we know 50 percent had been drinking, 24
percenthad notbeen drinking and 26 percent we do not know . Somore
than half of the drivers at fault in fatal accidents had been drinking.
He studied all of these drivers and found that 37 percent of them
were alcoholics by psychiatric definition and that an additional 13 to
15 percent were prealcoholics. Prealcoholics are the young people, the
teenagers and those in their early twenties who are developing such
a drinking pattern that it looks like, if they keep it up, they are going
to becomealcoholics.
But studies have never been done on the progression of an alcoholic,
especially in studies of alcoholism among teenagers, so they do not
know . That is why they put these people in a prealcoholic category .
Probably they are truly developing to bean alcoholic.
So what do we do with these people ? This is a real problem . Throw
them in the cooler for 10 days, and let them dry out? The first thing
they do is walk across the street from the jail to the bar; these people
are alcoholics. They are dependent on alcohol. Dr. Seltzer has found
that alcoholis only a symptom of deep-seated psychological problems
in every one of them , including suicidal tendencies in a good share,
paranoiacs, schizophrenics, and that the alcohol just happensto be an
obvioussign oftheir psychiatric problems.
These people need treatment. Now where do we put them ? Where
do we get all the psychiatrists to work in institutions to try and re
habilitate these people ? If one gets into an alcohol retreat for a few
months, that doesnotdo a thing.
Mr.MoCARTHY.Well,my question waswhy is it thatthese people are
permitted to drive ? I mean, I recognize the need for their rehabilita
tion, but I do not believe that is something that we can get into here.
Dr.HUELKE. Because if you take their license away, they are going to
driveanyway.Studies have shown
Mr.MCCARTHY. They will drive anyway ?
Dr.HUELKE. Yes.
Mr.McCARTHY. Withouta license ?
Dr. HUELKE. Sure. You are only caught once. You may not get
caughtagain .
I think it would be interesting to find out how many people in this
room have, in the last year, ever had to show their driver's license be
cause they were driving an automobile.
You have to have some sortof offense before this happens, and most
people hardly ever are caught; let's face it.
Mr. McCARTHY. Do you have any figures on the number of drivers
in theUnited States without licenses ?
Dr. HUELKE. No. This figure came through the Michigan area . Do
you know that?

220
Mr. PRISK . I have forgotten. It is very high.
Dr.HUELKE. I think in Michigan it is 200,000 .
Mr.McCARTHY. Outofhow many drivers !
Dr.HUELKE. 4.5 million , is it,in Michigan ?
Mr. PRISK . Itmust beat least that.
Dr. HUELKE. 4.5 or 5 million in Michigan, they think . It is a good
guesstimate,but they are not sure.
Mr.McCARTHY. Well, this is a tangent,but it is something of great
concern to this committee. The gentleman from Florida and I were
involved in an amendment that will require a study of alcoholism .
But as you say, the data are available. It is due July 1.
From what you say , we should not have much difficulty in gathering
the data .And once we have the recommendations for legislation which
this study requires, I would hope that this committee could act on this,
because this is a serious thing. I mean, I think if a person wants to get
drunk and kill himself, well, it is a free country .But I think if he hits
somebody else, that is our concern.
Dr. HUELKE. It is also interesting, in many areas and I can only
talk for Ann Arbor as a specific — a few years ago, the only way you
could get liquor in Ann Arbor was by the pint or the fifth . You could
not get just a small quantity. If you wanted to get alcohol, you had
to get itbig. They finally allowed liquor by the glass.
Of course, you cannot have it near the campus area because of the
students. You know , Indians and firewater. So more of the bars, for
themost part, are put out in the county area. They do not have bus
service yet to get out there, so if you want to do any serious drinking
in Ann Arbor, it almost requires you to drive. Yet there is a municipal
ordinance that it is a misdemeanor to be driving after drinking.
So you talk about confusion, I think this is a prime example of one
hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. I think it is obvious
in someof the things today on the highway.
This is what we are concerned with today, and I think we should
emphasize the fact that thingshave to be done. I believe that the reason
that we see these things on the highway is not necessarily lack of con
cern by the highway designers,but the lack of education as to what an
automobile accident is. And these data, these studies such as this, have
really only been available for less than 10 years, these types of data .
There are only three groups in theUnited States collecting accident
data firsthand now . AtMichigan we are doing it ; in Detroit, Professor
Patrick atWayne State is doing it; and Dr. Nahum and Mr. Segel at
UCLA Medical School are doing it. And that is all.
Mr. Zion .Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCARTHY. Yes.
Mr.Zion . I would like to ask Mr. Prisk and Dr. Huelke if they are
aware of the studies showing impact on themultiflora rose hedge ?
Mr. Prisk. Yes, the Bureau partieipated in the study on the multi
flora rose hedge as a possible device for restraining vehicles that go
out of control and off the pavement. We found it to be reasonably
effective. It does have some disadvantages, in that once hit, it takes
3 or 4 years to grow the rose hedge back up to that point. So if you
have a place, say at the outside of the curve, where cars with any fre
quency tend to leave the road, a multiflora rose is not a very effective
thing except for one accident.
out of co. It does havehe rosehed thecurve,we

221
In addition to that, it is quite a trash catcher, to get to the esthetics
ofit.
It does do a pretty good job ofstopping a vehicle; weknow that.
Mr.Zion. I would like to make available for the committee members'
inspection some pictures of the multiflora rose hedge as used in the
State of Oregon. It is apparently quite attractive and does not show
the trash -collecting capacity which you mentioned , although I am
sure this is true.
Dr. Huelke, my wife and I were very well aware of your interest in
preventive medicine atmyalmamater. I can say that with my experi
ence with Michigan and its capacity to prevent diseases and so forth , it
hasnever been more vividly portrayed in activities, in preventing seri
ousaccidents, as this job you are doing now ; and I would like to asso
ciate myself with the remarks that this is a wonderful service per
formed by you and by your alma mater. I think citizens of this coun
tryaremost indebted to you foryour work.
Dr.HUELKE. Thank you very much , sir.
Mr.MCCARTHY. If there is no objection, I would like to request that
these photographs be made available for reference by the committee.
Mr.Zion. Yes.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection , they will be marked as “ Ex
hibit 1.”
(The exhibit is retained in subcommittee files.)
Mr.McCARTHY. Mr.May.
Mr. W . May. Dr.Huelke,we had testimony in the previous 2 days
from Mr. Joseph Linko, of New York . Mr. Linko stressed changes
in design of construction that would call for,asMr. Linko said, a slid
ing action of the vehicle. If it strikes the guardrail and ifa guardrail
were properly overlapping thebridge end post,you get a sliding action.
The accidents you analyzed seem to stress situations where the vehicle
came to an abrupthalt.
Is there not a relationship in the thinking of both of you ?
Dr. HUELKE. This is the whole concept. It is not how fast you are
going; it is how fast you stop that causes the injury. And you want to
take that time period and go and go and go and go before you come
to a stop; and never do it abruptly,because it is the abrupt stop that
causes deformation ofthe vehicle and injury to the people.
Mr. W .May. While engaged in the inquiry a few monthsago,weon
the staff were impressed to read about Mr. Arfons, who was driving a
test car going 580miles an hour and lost control of the vehicle,and he
lived . As a matter of fact, he was very slightly injured, which sug
gested to the staff at least, that a person can lose control of a vehicle
and would come to a stop without serious injury if he continued to
move, to slide,and gradually slow down.
Dr. HUELKE. That is just what he did in his car.
Mr. W .May. He did not strike a bridge abutment or a signpost.
Mr. Chairman , I would like to make Dr. Huelke's Highway Re
Search Board paper, called “ Nonintersection Body Fatalities A Prob
lem in Roadway Design," exhibit 2.
Mr.McCARTHY.Without objection,so ordered .
(Exhibit No. 2 is retained in subcommittee files.)
Mr. W . May. Do you have anything else to add, Dr. Huelke ?
I haveno further questions.
87–757 0 _ 68 — 15

222
Dr.HUELKE.Nothing. Thank you .
Mr. W .May. I want to thank you verymuch for your help and your
cooperation .
Mr. BLATNIK .Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Blatnik .
Mr. BLATNIK . I was impressed with the testimony this morning. I
would like to be recognized to make a concluding statement and an
announcement for further hearings.
Weconclude today the third session of public hearings on the subject
of the design and operational efficiency of our highways.
The testimony to date, as the story has unfolded , has been that of
widespread and serious design deficiencies that have persisted over
the years and throughout the country in the construction of our high
ways, roads, and streets.
One aspect which especially bothers me is the great gap that has
been shown to exist between what we have learned from research and
experience and its practical application in the designing and building
of our new roads.
The reasons for many of our accidents have been well known for a
long time; yet there appears to have existed a tremendous failure to
translate that knowledge into positive, corrective action.
Again and again, we have found, for reasons that seem completely
unaccountable, that the findings of research and experience are
simply not being fully utilized by those who design and build our
roads.
These hearings to date have clearly shown that a long, hard look at
the whole area of highway design is in order. It will be the work of
this subcommittee to explore further these matters in future hearings.
Before we close today's hearings, the first segment, I want to pay a
well-deserved tribute to a gentleman, one of our witnessesduring these
past 3 days, who has provided invaluable service to our subcommittee
in our inquiry .
The cooperation furnished us by the Bureau of Public Roads in
previous investigations hasbeen of the highest order. It has been con
tinued in thematter now before us. The expert, specialized knowledge
gained over a period ofmany years by Mr. Charles W . Prisk has been
made available to us in preparation for the hearings and continually
during theconductofthe hearingsthemselves.
Mr. Prisk was introduced as a witness on the first day ofour hearings
last Tuesday, but I would like to have the record again show Mr.
Prisk is Deputy Director of the Office of Traffic Operations, Bureau
of Public Roads, U .S. Department of Transportation. An eminently
qualified engineer, he is recognized and respected in highway circles
throughout the country as a specialist in the field of highway safety.
Over years past, Mr. Prisk has worked long and hard in the cause of
improved road design safety . He is no stranger to the conditions that
have been described to us by the testimony of Mr. Linko and Dr.
Huelke. On the contrary, he has been untiring in his efforts over many
years to bring about reforms in highway design , the needs for which
have been so dramatically established by the testimony we have heard
to date .
We are indeed fortunate to have available to us the expertise, the
experience, the enthusiasm , frankness, straightforwardness, and forth

228
he stafi,jerthe Chairm. Ihope you
rightness with which Mr. Prisk has made his presentations and re
sponded to all inquiries raised in the course of the proceedings.
We look forward to his continued advice and counsel and further
information as these hearings go forward ; and so,Mr. Chairman, the
public hearing for today is concluded .
Again, Dr. Huelke, our deepest appreciation. I hope you will not
mind if the members of the staff, or the Chair, on behalf of the com
mittee and members of the staff, keep in contact with you for further
evaluation or interpretation of any other material and testimony
which may comebefore us.
We commend you for your dedicated service, which obviously is far
beyond the call of plain duty, and may very well result in the reduction
of the type of accidents, type of fatalities, mutilations and injuries
that havebeen so needlessly suffered in the past.We thank you, Doctor.
These hearings will now recess, subject to call at a future day to be
announced later. Before we adjourn for themorning, I will be pleased
to yield to the ranking minority leader, the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Cramer.
Mr. CRAMER. I have a couple of questions I wanted to ask before
these witnesses leave.
Doctor, I understand that you showed some slides indicating trees
planted, for instance, in the median strip. I gather it was your con
clusion that, in many instances, those are traffic hazards and can cause
accidents. Is that right ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes. No matter how close they are to the roadway,
whether they are in themedian or elsewhere, on the right side— I did
not specifically show a film oftrees in themedian ; but Michigan, espe
cially the northern Michigan area, is notorious for this.
Mr. CRAMER. You say they are notorious for trees planted in the
middle of the median strip
Dr. HUELKE. Yes.
Mr. CRAMER. Now , is it your opinion that, as a general rule, the
planting of trees in the median strip , so far as safety is concerned , is
a mistake ?
Dr. HUELKE. Yes. Especially if they are allowed to grow up. One
concept I had one time, if I might interrupt
Mr. CRAMER. You cannot keep it from growing up .
Dr. HUELKE. This is the concept. I was talking to one man from
another county than ours, and he was complaining about trees in gen
eral, and one of their problems is they do not have enough tree-farm
area. I said , “Well, your expressway in your region has a median that
is so wide, why do you not use that for the tree farm ? Also , these little
saplings will be very good impact attenuation devices if you would
happen to crash into the tree farm . Then when you need to move them ,
to put them in subdivisions, or wherever you would , take them out of
the median ." But you never allow them to grow there permanently .
Mr. CRAMER. I would be the last to suggest you are not fully aware
of the esthetics and beauty and necessity of accomplishing beauty
wherever possible. But, in your opinion, if it is a choice between beauty
and planting trees in the median strip as relates to beauty and as
compared to safety, you would recommend against it ?
Dr. HUELKE. Not trees.
Mr. CRAMER. What ?

224
Dr. HUELKE. Not trees in the median.
Mr. CRAMER. Right. And also not trees how far from the highway
itself on the right or left side of the highways, the traveled roadway ?
Mr. Prisk has indicated their regulations are 30 feet — which , inci
dentally, are not being lived up to, according to the pictures we have
seen.
Dr. HUELKE. Yes. Now , we have found in our study, as indicated
in the reprint that was submitted as part of the testimony that many
of our cars do not travel too far to hit trees.
One of the big problems, as I was indicating before, is that once the
people leave the roadway there is this steep embankment, or some
thing of the sort, that takes them on the track down to this tree. If
these areas are flattened , the individual can more easily recover with
out becoming panicky and striking objects.
Studies have been done, and I will read here at the end of the paper
about roadside clearances studies. It has been shown in one study that if
the roadsides are cleared of obstacles for 33 feet from the road edge,
probably 80 percentofthe accidents would nothave occurred .
Mr. CRAMER .How many feet ?
Dr. HUELKE. Thirty-three. Cornell, in their ACIR program , ana
lyzed data that indicated 80 percent of the vehicles struck an object
within 12 feet of the roadway. Again , the trees and abutments, and
what have you, are so close, you go off a little way and you are there.
So we do have to have a lot of clearing. And I think 33 feet would be
good. But we have to think of the approaches to those trees, as I say.
Are we talking about a flat area or a downhill?
Mr. CRAMER. Yes. If it is a downgrade area, the automobile would
be channeled into it; then they should be farther than 33 feet; is that
right?
Dr.HUELKE. Yes.
Mr. CRAMER . Now , Mr. Prisk , I am sure you are aware the present
law, section 319 (a ) of title 23, United States Code, provides that the
Secretary may approve, as part of the construction of Federal-aid
highways, the costs of landscape and roadside development, including
acquisition and development of public owned and controlled rest and
recreation areas,and sanitary and other facilities, necessary to accom
modate the traveling public. Therefore, the States are permitted to
plant trees or other beautification items on the right-of-way and on
themedian strips. Is thatnotcorrect ?
Mr.Prisk. Yes.
Mr.CRAMER.And in fact,many Statesaredoingit; right?
Mr. Prisk . Yes.
Mr. CRAMER. And, as a matter of fact, I understand that recently
in Honolulu they planted coconut trees about 2 feet from the traveled
roadway.
Mr. PRISK . I am not aware of that.
Mr. CRAMER. On an Interstate highway.
Mr. PRISK . I am not aware of that. I think there has been an evolu
tion in the instructions as far as safety is concerned , and these per
haps could more recently affect the situation you are citing.
Mr. CRAMER . So, in those instances,maybe we are overbeautifying
and " undersafetyfying."
Mr. Prisk . If they are 2 feet away, they are.

Mr. CRAMER. It would be pretty obvious, would it not ?
Mr. PRISK. It would be.
Mr. CRAMER. The reason I asked the question is it seems to mean
other instance where there is lack of coordination as it relates to plant
ing trees, between the concept of safety and the concept of beauty,
which we also saw the other day in the building of these walls, for
instance, with the jagged edges sticking out for esthetic purposes.
Is there any hope that there will be coordination in the future and
that safety will be properly upgraded ? How is that going to come
about in the future if it has not in the past !
Mr. PRISK . I think through improved recognition of the problem .
This,of course, is the very first step in any betterment. From my seat
in the executive branch , and knowing how people feel increasingly
impressed with this recently evolving research , which as Dr. Huelke
said, has only been available to us for a relatively short period of
years, I believe there is a swing toward a great dealmore emphasis on
safety.
Mr. CRAMER. Well, it would seem to beabout time.
It is a little disconcerting to me that there has not been adequate
emphasis in the past, particularly in such obvious things as planting
trees 2 feet from the traveled road.
This new agency, the National Highway Safety Bureau — inciden
tally, Mr. Chairman, or maybe I should ask counsel — are we going
to have as witnesses anyone representing the National Highway
Safety Bureau, headed by Dr. Haddon ?
Mr. W . May. I would expect at the end of the first phase of these
hearings, we would have Dr. Haddon .
(At this point, Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair.)
Mr. CRAMER. Some time at the end of the hearing ?
Mr. W . MAY. At the end of the first phase, roadside hazards.
Mr. CRAMER. Maybe we can find out from Dr. Haddon what his
thoughts or plans are relating to the safety aspects. The agency has
been established for the purpose, as set out in the act, of establishing
standards relating to safety.
I would hope that, with the Safety Act on the books and the Bald
win amendment passed a year or so before that, safety will be up
graded to a major consideration.
We are going to build these highways and supposedly save 8,000
lives a year on the Interstate System alone,which is one of the reasons
for its being built. Then I think it is essential that adequate consid
eration be given to safety features and efforts to make the highways
esthetically acceptable or beautiful should give way to safety consid
erations where it is obviously causing safety hazards.
You would not quarrel with that, would you , Mr. Prisk ?
Mr. PRISK . Not at all, sir.
Mr. CRAMER. I hope we can get into that. Certainly there is a lack
of coordination , and safety should be given primary consideration.
Mr.McDonald.Mr.Chairman,may Imakeone point?
Mr. BLATNIK . The gentleman is recognized
Mr.McDonald. I would like to thank Dr. Huelke for his fine pres
entation . I think the slides point up the problem studied .
I looked beyond the traveled roadway and did observe the beautiful
Michigan scenery . Itmademehomesick , Doctor.

226
I would hope, as these hearings continue, we keep in mind the pos
sibility of enacting legislation through the Congress to require that
review bemade of the plans developed for highways,keeping in mind
the safety factors.
In the last 51 years, it is evident we have not done this as much as
we should have. I think perhaps some congressional action may be
necessary to see to it that we do build safety into our highways.
Once again , Doctor, thank you verymuch .
Dr. HUELKE. Thank you .
Mr. BLATNIK . Thank you, gentlemen . No further questions? The
hearings for today are adjourned ,and further meetings will be set at
the call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 12 :05 p .m ., the subcommittee was recessed , to re
convene at thecall ofthe Chair.)

113 172

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 113 172

Similar to 113 172 (20)

More from Sierra Francisco Justo

More from Sierra Francisco Justo (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

113 172