My new Harley, Ultraglide Limited (2019) and my certificate….I recommend the advanced riding course to EVERYONE who rides a bike. New Bike.jpg



Updated Lectures, articles, workshops and courses.

Use this link to check if we have a lecture/talk near you.

You can complete the same course online

Any questions – drop me an email for a prompt reply.




News for 2018


Happy New Year.

We’ve a number of projects launching in 2018

The new book “Applied Crowd Science” (currently in draft)

Our website launches – with an MSc demo area (VLE – Virtual Learning Environment).

Our eLearning site ( goes live in January

We’ve a number of courses and workshops in 2018 (

Our conference “Crowd Science at Manchester Metropolitan University (CS@MMU) is 13th Sept

Our first cohort on the MSc in Crowd Safety and Risk Analysis graduates.

Drop me a line if you’d like any further information on the above.


Paper published in “Medicine, Science and Law”

Screen Shot 2017-04-07 at 05.46.37.png

Scientific paper published in “Medicine, Science and the Law” April 2017

Acute forces required for fatal compression asphyxia: A biomechanical model and historical comparisons

Mark W Kroll, G Keith Still, Tom S Neuman, Michael A Graham and Lanny V Griffin


A biomechanical ribcage model predicts that an adult male requires at least 2550 +/- 250 N (260 +/- 26 kg) of static chest mass to cause flail chest. This is consistent with the records of judicial pressing. The model predicts that an adult male requires 4050 +/- 320 N of dynamic force to cause flail chest.

Click here for the pressure research page

Crowd Analysis for the New York Times

We were monitoring the crowd build up from 0600 (Washington DC time) from 7 different live TV feeds. These are the images of the crowds 45 minutes before the Oath of Office. From the front, the crowd density looks similar, but note the white areas near the back of the 2017 crowds.

From the Podium – the low angle would give the illusion of a packed area stretching far into the distance. This is a common crowd illusion and often leads to overestimating the crowd size. You need to see ALL angles to understand the actual attendance.

Screen Shot 2017-01-20 at 22.29.50.png

From a lower angle, we can see the spaces more clearly.

Screen Shot 2017-01-20 at 22.46.01.png

From the rear view we can see that the front 1/3rd is full (ticketed/seated areas) but the back 2/3rds are empty.

Screen Shot 2017-01-20 at 18.20.25.png

When we use a plan image, mapping the areas, we see the relative crowd size on the Mall.

Screen Shot 2017-01-20 at 22.46.30.png

Using both the visual analysis and a plan/area analysis we have a 1/3rd of the space occupied in the Trump (2017) inauguration compared to the Obama (2009) inauguration.

This is not a political statement, just a crowd estimation. Our initial, real-time estimate of 1/3rd was later confirmed with the area estimate.

From the New York Times (based on our analysis)


We can produce a comparative analysis of area very quickly and therefore a comparative crowd size (given crowd density for similar types of events). So the 20th Jan 2017 had approx. 1/3rd the crowd occupancy of the 2009 event. The 21st Jan had approximately 3x the crowd of the 20th Jan event. When high-resolution images become available, we will update our analysis.

Analysis by Keith Still and Marcel Altenburg – Manchester Metropolitan University.