1 NTSB/HAB-18/14

National Transportation Safety Board

Washington, DC 20594

Highway Accident Brief

Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle

Old Saybrook, Connecticut, August 16, 2016

Accident Number: HWY16SH024

Accident Type: Fatal pedestrian collision with sport utility vehicle

Location: Maple Avenue at Cambridge Court West, Old Saybrook, 

Connecticut

Date and Time: August 16, 2016, about 8:11 p.m. eastern daylight time

Vehicle: 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser

Driver: 73-year-old male

Pedestrian: 89-year-old male

Fatalities: 1

Crash Description

About 8:11 p.m. on Tuesday, August 16, 2016, a 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser sport utility 

vehicle (SUV) driven by a 73-year-old male was southbound on Maple Avenue in Old Saybrook, 

Middlesex County, Connecticut. At the intersection of Maple Avenue and Cambridge Court West, 

an 89-year-old male pedestrian walked from the west side of Maple Avenue to the soft dirt shoulder 

on the east side, according to a witness, then turned around and crossed the northbound lane of 

Maple Avenue. He walked about 2 feet into the southbound lane, where he was struck by the left 

front fender of the SUV (figure 1). 

The pedestrian came to rest in the northbound lane of Maple Avenue. The SUV came to 

final rest south of the intersection. The pedestrian was transported to Middlesex Hospital–

Shoreline Medical Center in Westbrook, Connecticut, where he was pronounced dead. 

At the time of the collision, it was twilight (the sun had set at 7:47 p.m.), and the moon, 

which rose at 6:35 p.m., was 96 percent illuminated. The temperature was 78.8°F, winds were 

from the south at 11.5 mph, and the sky was overcast.1

 

1 Weather data from https://www.wunderground.com/history/.
Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 

August 16, 2016

2 NTSB/HAB-18/14

Figure 1. Diagram of crash scene showing pedestrian’s path back and forth across Maple 

Avenue, path of SUV on Maple Avenue, and final rest positions of pedestrian and SUV. Debris 

on roadway is also indicated.

Crash Location

The area around Cambridge Court West and Maple Avenue is residential (figure 2). Maple 

Avenue is a two-lane asphalt roadway that has a single lane in each direction (northeast and 

southwest), separated by a double yellow center line. A single white line (“fog line”) separates the 

northeastbound travel lane from the shoulder. A raised curb and a grassy strip separate the sidewalk 

from the southwestbound lane. The posted speed limit for Maple Avenue is 35 mph. 

The area has no crosswalks or pedestrian control signals. Street lighting is limited to a 

single lamp mounted on a pole at the intersection of Cambridge Court East and Maple Avenue. 

The light is above a tree canopy along the east side of Maple Avenue, and the trees project a 

shadow onto the shoulder of the roadway. No records for pedestrian collisions were found in the 

crash history of Maple Avenue.
Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 

August 16, 2016

3 NTSB/HAB-18/14

Figure 2. Aerial view of crash location showing intersection of Maple Avenue with Cambridge 

Court East and Cambridge Court West. (Base photo by Google Earth)

Pedestrian

The pedestrian lived in the area. On the night of the crash, he was wearing a white shortsleeved shirt, dark pants, and shoes. In an interview conducted by law enforcement officers, the 

pedestrian’s family said that he often took nightly walks in the area and would occasionally cross 

Maple Avenue. The family stated that he had recently been walking at night, when it was cooler 

outside than during the day. According to his family, the pedestrian had a pacemaker, high 

cholesterol, and slight dementia, though it did not disable him. 

The hospital released the pedestrian’s body to the Connecticut Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner, which performed an autopsy and toxicological tests. The pedestrian’s height was listed 

as 5 feet 8 inches and his weight as 163 pounds.2 The cause of death was recorded as blunt impact 

of head, torso, and extremities, with fractures and visceral injuries. The toxicological tests were 

negative for alcohol and other drugs.

 

2 Pedestrian characteristics, such as height and weight, were documented to aid crash reconstruction and evaluate 

pedestrian injuries.
Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 

August 16, 2016

4 NTSB/HAB-18/14

Driver

The SUV driver held a Connecticut class D (noncommercial) driver’s license with a 

corrective lens restriction. The driver was not wearing corrective lenses at the time of the collision.

During a postcrash interview of the driver, police officers found no signs of impairment. The driver 

stated that the last prescription medication he had taken earlier in the morning was a muscle

relaxant. He further stated that he was a Type II diabetic, noninsulin-dependent, and that he

required prescription medication.

Immediately after the crash, the driver was taken to the local police department and 

willingly submitted to an alcohol breath test. The test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 

0.000. A urine sample was collected and submitted to the state toxicology laboratory. Tests were 

negative for alcohol and other drugs.

The driver gave a written statement to law enforcement officers. He stated that he departed 

Danbury, Connecticut, at 6:00 p.m. and traveled on Interstate 84 to Route 9, which he exited about

8:15 p.m.3 He stated that it was dark and that his headlights were on. After exiting the highway, 

he traveled to Old Saybrook on Route 154 (which becomes Main Street) and turned south onto 

Maple Avenue. He stated that he remembered one or two vehicles behind him, but that there were 

no vehicles ahead of him and that vehicles traveling north on Maple Avenue had passed him. He 

stated that at the time of the collision, he was traveling about 30 mph when an elderly male walked 

in front of his vehicle. The driver said the pedestrian appeared to come from the east side of the 

road. The driver said he did not have time to brake or swerve to avoid striking the pedestrian. 

The driver stated that his Connecticut operator’s license had an eyeglass restriction and 

that at the time of the crash, he was driving without his glasses. Records were obtained from the 

driver’s ophthalmologist for a visit on March 11, 2016, during which the driver complained of 

slowly worsening vision in both eyes, particularly when driving. The examination revealed distant 

vision of 20/80 (with two errors) in the right eye and 20/60 (with two errors) in the left eye. His 

near vision was documented as 20/400 (with two errors) in each eye. In addition, the driver had 

cataracts in both the central and peripheral areas of the lenses of both eyes.4 The physician 

identified an abnormality of the retina that he was concerned might be cancer. The driver was 

prescribed glasses for distant and near vision and referred to a retinal specialist. If the retinal 

abnormality was not cancer, the plan was to remove the cataracts. That had not been done at the 

time of the collision.

 

3 The driver slightly misstated the time he exited Route 9, given that the collision occurred about 8:11 p.m.

4 A cataract is an area of clouding of the lens of the eye. Symptoms include cloudy or blurry vision, seeing faded 

colors, glare from point sources of light, and halos around lights, as well as a diminished ability to perceive color and 

contrast in low-light conditions. When a cataract progresses to the point where a person can no longer see well during 

the day or pass a vision test, the symptoms are usually significant enough that he or she will seek treatment. The 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) addressed the dangers of cataracts as they relate to pilots in a safety 

recommendation report issued in 2016 (Improving Pilot and Aviation Medical Examiner Knowledge of Cataract 

Hazards, NTSB/ASR-16-03). 
Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 

August 16, 2016

5 NTSB/HAB-18/14

The driver’s cell phone record was examined after the collision. It showed that the driver 

was not talking or texting when the crash occurred.

Vehicle

The crash vehicle was a 2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser SUV. The driver reported that the vehicle 

was in working order before the crash. Damage to the SUV postcrash included material transfer

on the left front fender and front bumper and hood. The left front fender was displaced and dented,

and the corner pad of the left front bumper was torn off (figure 3). The left side of the hood was

also dented. 

Figure 3. Front view of crash SUV showing damage to left fender near turn signal assembly.

The SUV was equipped with air bags, which did not deploy in the crash, and air bag control 

modules (ACMs) that recorded event data. The ACM data were acquired by Connecticut State 

Police investigators and interpreted using the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval System. Precrash data 

indicated that the driver’s seatbelt was buckled. The ACM recorded a maximum longitudinal 

change in velocity of -0.3 mph at 140 milliseconds after the event. The data were consistent with 

an impact on the front of the vehicle.

Witnesses

Police interviewed three witnesses. Witness No. 1 was traveling behind the SUV at the 

time of the collision. According to her written statement, the witness first noticed the SUV because 

it made a wide right turn onto Maple Avenue from Main Street (about a mile and a half north of 
Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 

August 16, 2016

6 NTSB/HAB-18/14

the crash site). She stated that the SUV overshot the turn and struck the curb on the island in the 

intersection. She followed the SUV as it traveled on Maple Avenue at 30 to 40 mph; it never 

appeared to her to be traveling at a high speed. She stated that the SUV was swerving in its lane

and crossed the fog line and double center line several times. She increased her distance from the 

SUV as both vehicles approached Cambridge Court. She saw the pedestrian coming from the left 

side. He was in the left lane but had not made it to the middle of the road. She stated, “It did not 

appear the pedestrian saw the vehicle.” She stated that the SUV swerved out of the lane to the left 

and crossed the double yellow line, then struck the pedestrian in the left lane. She saw the 

pedestrian fly into the air, then strike the ground. She immediately stopped her vehicle and called

911. 

Witness No. 2 was traveling behind witness No. 1. In a written statement, she said she was 

driving on Maple Avenue behind a vehicle that began to slow down. She realized that a male was 

in the roadway, and it appeared that he was attempting to cross it. She stated that the pedestrian

was moving slowly, as though shuffling. She saw him approach the double yellow line but did not 

see the collision. 

Witness No. 3 was with her daughter at the time of the collision, walking her dog north on 

Maple Avenue. In her written statement, she said she saw an elderly male cross Maple Avenue 

from Cambridge Court West to Cambridge Court East. As she approached Cambridge Court West,

she saw the same elderly male bend down and appear to drop something, then stand up and proceed 

to cross Maple Avenue to return to Cambridge Court West. As he was crossing the street, the 

witness observed the front of a silver SUV strike him. She stated that the SUV did not appear to 

be traveling at a high speed, and that the driver immediately applied the brakes and pulled off to 

the side of the roadway. The witness said she called 911 and waited until the police arrived.

Applicable Traffic Laws

Title 14 of the Connecticut general statutes regulates the movement of pedestrians and 

motor vehicles on public roadways. Pedestrians not in a crosswalk are required to yield the rightof-way to motor vehicles (section 300b):

Each pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk marked as 

provided in subsection (a) of section 14-300 or any unmarked crosswalk or at a location 

controlled by police officers shall yield the right of way to each vehicle upon such roadway.

Pedestrians have the right-of-way while in a crosswalk, marked or unmarked, that is not 

controlled by police officers or traffic signals (section 300c):

. . . at any crosswalk marked as provided in subsection (a) of this section or any unmarked 

crosswalk . . . each operator of a vehicle shall grant the right-of-way . . . to any pedestrian 

crossing the roadway within such crosswalk . . . .

Drivers are required to exercise due care to avoid pedestrians (section 300d):

. . . each operator of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian 

or person propelling a human powered vehicle and shall give a reasonable warning by 

sounding a horn or other lawful noise emitting device to avoid a collision.
Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 

August 16, 2016

7 NTSB/HAB-18/14

Under Title 14, section 36-4, a driver’s license may be issued that contains one or more 

limitations (required to be indicated on the license), including the following:

(b)(2) Operation of the motor vehicle is permitted only when the person is using corrective 

lenses, not including telescopic lenses, as prescribed by a licensed optometrist or 

ophthalmologist

Conspicuity Test

The Old Saybrook Police Department conducted a conspicuity test several hours after the 

collision (which occurred during twilight). A police vehicle equipped with a forward-facing

camera traveled down Maple Avenue at two speeds, 30 mph and 35 mph. A pedestrian wearing a 

reflective vest stood on the shoulder at the east edge of Maple Avenue. In the test, the pedestrian 

was not visible to the driver (figure 4) until perpendicular to the outer left edge of the police 

vehicle’s headlight beam.

Figure 4. Snapshot from video taken during police conspicuity test. Pedestrian wearing reflective 

vest was standing in area outlined by red rectangle. 

NTSB investigators examined the crash scene on a later date, at the approximate time of 

the collision and in approximately the same lighting conditions. The investigators observed that 

visibility in the area was poor, particularly at the side and shoulder of the roadway, but that a 

pedestrian walking in the travel lane would have been illuminated by the nearby streetlight.

Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the crash 

in Old Saybrook, Connecticut, was the decision of the pedestrian to walk across the multilane 

roadway in front of the oncoming vehicle. Contributing to the cause of the crash were the driver’s 

poor vision and the low-light conditions.
Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Sport Utility Vehicle, Old Saybrook, Connecticut, 

August 16, 2016

8 NTSB/HAB-18/14

BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

ROBERT L. SUMWALT, III EARL F. WEENER 

Chairman Member

BRUCE LANDSBERG T. BELLA DINH-ZARR

Vice Chairman Member

JENNIFER HOMENDY

Member

Adopted: September 7, 2018

For more details about this accident, visit the NTSB public docket and search for NTSB 

accident ID HWY16SH024. The accident dockets include such information as police reports, 

photographs, driver and witness statements, data on previous crashes, highway engineering 

reports, and timing of traffic signals. 

The NTSB does not assign fault or blame for an accident or incident; rather, as specified 

by NTSB regulation, “accident/incident investigations are fact-finding proceedings with no formal 

issues and no adverse parties . . . and are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights 

or liabilities of any person.” 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 831.4. Assignment of fault 

or legal liability is not relevant to the NTSB’s statutory mission to improve transportation safety 

by investigating accidents and incidents and issuing safety recommendations. In addition, statutory 

language prohibits the admission into evidence or use of any part of an NTSB report related to an 

accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. 49 United 

States Code, Section 1154(b).