There are a number of inventions designed to restrict the view of an accident to passing motorists and pedestrians in the prior art.

We discuss prior art for two main reasons. First, to give credit and recognition to others who have taken the initiative over the last 20 years to consider an approach and filed a patent representing their solution to the problem. Second, to provide the reader with background information on known alternative approaches and to compare these alternatives with TC Cover^TM.

For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,249 to Kuntz (2000) allows emergency vehicles to have an accident shield device installed in their trunk. Upon arriving at an accident scene, emergency personnel deploy the accident shield by unfolding panels. The expanded panels are secured by being connected to the emergency vehicle and by adjustable feet at the bottom of the panels. The end result is a visual barrier between the passing motorists and accident scene.

Japan Pat. No. JP11209936 to Nobuhiro (1999) describes an accident spot shielding device consisting of a shielding curtain with support posts at each end. The shielding curtain is held upright by inserting the bottom of each post into a hole placed in cylindrical supports. The shield spreads out and folds up similar to the bellows of an accordion.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,553,648 to Goharjou (1996) allows emergency personnel to set up a portable wall at an accident scene. The portable wall consists of a flexible sheet, collapsible vertical posts, and base components. The base components are used to support the vertical posts. The vertical posts are used to support the flexible sheet. At the upper end of each vertical post is a ring used to attach stabilizing cords. The other end of each cord is tied to hooks which are physically screwed into the ground on each side of the vertical posts.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,269,623 to Hanson (1993) obstructs oncoming motorists’ view of an accident scene by using an inflatable screen. The main conduit has outwardly projected leg members for supporting the screen and upwardly projecting stanchions spaced apart. Pressurized gas is used to rapidly deploy the shield into its operative position. Ground engaging or retention devices are used to hold the shield in place at the accident site.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,186,912 to Byrd, Jr. (1980) creates a visual barrier using an elongated screen of light-reflective material supported at each end by folding posts. The two end posts are secured using mounting cables to any conveniently fixed objects, such as a tree, telephone pole, building, or another motor vehicle.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,124,196 to Hipskind (1978) describes a portable device for screening off an accident scene from view using a non-transparent, elongated sheet of thin flexible material which is deployed from a portable cylindrical container, similar to a retractable curtain rod. This device is attached to the bumper of an emergency vehicle. Tripod based poles are used to support the elongated sheet in an upright position.

There are many disadvantages of the prior art. These disadvantages can be summarized as:

1. All prior art above is large, takes up a lot of space, and can add significant weight to an emergency vehicle in order to provide a temporary wall barrier at an accident scene. To be effective, the temporary wall barrier needs to be approximately five feet high and long enough to screen off a large area. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,186,912 to Byrd, Jr. (1980), the length of the screen was stated as “thirty-six feet long or larger”. But emergency vehicles may not have a large amount of extra space to support the prior art. Adding additional weight may also impact the acceleration and response times of existing emergency vehicles.
   

2. All prior art above creates a temporary wall barrier between the passing motorists and vehicles involved in an accident. None of these inventions physically attach itself to the vehicles involved in the accident.
   

3. Some prior art above, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,249 to Kuntz (2000) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,124,196 to Hipskind (1978), use an emergency vehicle to support the barrier when it is set up. The main disadvantage of this approach is if the emergency vehicle needs to move, emergency personnel may need to take down the barrier first or move the vehicle carefully with the attached barrier still extended.
   

4. All prior art above must be set up and taken down. Due to the size and number of components of the prior art, this may be a non-trivial, time consuming task for most, if not all, of the above inventions.
   

5. All prior art above need to address how to prevent movement of the invention once it has been set up. For example, inventions need to address adverse weather conditions, such as high winds. In order to restrict the ability of passing motorists from viewing the accident scene, many prior inventions create a large surface area to block the motorists’ view. To minimize movement due to wind, some screens use a mesh fabric or have cut flaps in the fabric to allow the wind to pass through. However if a high gust of wind were to hit such a large surface area, the invention itself may act as a sail and may be moved into the path of the passing motorists potentially causing an unintentional accident. To counter this undesired movement, some prior inventions use additional weight to better secure their invention. But adding additional weight to emergency vehicles is not an advantage. Other inventions are required to be tied to objects (e.g., hooks) physically attached to the ground in order for them to maintain an upright position. But if the accident occurs on a multilane freeway built of solid concrete where you cannot easily penetrate the ground, there may be no way to use the invention as described since the posts cannot be supported in the upright position.

When the TC Cover is compared to the prior art mentioned above, TC Cover differs substantially in a number of ways. The advantages of TC Cover over prior art are:

1. This invention is significantly smaller, takes up less space, and is lightweight, while still supporting the main goal of restricting the motorists’ view of an accident.
   

2. There is no temporary wall barrier setup at the accident scene to restrict the view of the vehicles involved in the accident to passing motorists. Instead, the present invention physically attaches itself to one or more vehicles involved in the accident.
   

3. Emergency vehicles are free to move at any time as emergency vehicles are not used to provide support for this invention.
   

4. This invention may be set up and taken down faster than most, if not all, prior art.
   

5. This invention costs less to build than most, if not all, prior art.
   

6. As an option, this invention can stay attached to the vehicle in order to wrap the vehicle as it is being towed. Keeping this invention attached to the vehicle during transport may help to prevent glass, metal, and other material loosened by the accident from dropping onto the roadway as the vehicle is being towed. This potentially could prevent a new accident from occurring, one caused by debris falling off from the original accident. By properly labeling this invention, the responding agency applying the cover can simply stop by the tow yard at some later time to retrieve this invention.
   

7. There is no large, upright surface area which would need to withstand the full force of the wind as is the case with the prior art. Under certain circumstances depending on the direction and speed of the wind, wind can actually help keep this invention attached to the vehicle by pressing the traffic collision cover to the vehicle.