Crash Prevention News

       The Partnership for Safe Driving is urging all parents of teen drivers to have the speed governor settings on their cars lowered before the summer begins. Speeding is a leading killer of teenagers in this country, and many crashes involving teen drivers occur at speeds that are not legal anywhere in the nation.
       
       It is a little-known fact that all cars sold in the U.S. have speed governors on them. Governors regulate the maximum speed of vehicles and are installed by the manufacturers primarily to protect the tires, which are not designed to handle the top speeds of which today's powerful engines are capable. (Speed governors have nothing to do with the "pick-up rate" of a vehicle, which is determined by horsepower.)
       
       However, the manufacturers apparently are more concerned with protecting their tires than protecting the people who drive their cars. Every governor setting researched by the Partnership exceeded 100 mph, despite the fact that the maximum speed limit in the country is 75 mph, and the maximum speed at which occupant protection systems are designed and tested is much lower than that.
       
       Here are some examples of governor settings we found on cars sold in the U.S. in recent years.
       
       Lexus IS300 = 144 mph (Source: msautomall.com)
       
       BMW M3 = 137 mph (Source: Car and Driver)
       
       Buick Riviera=109 mph (Source: Car and Driver)
       
       Dodge Durango=110 mph (Source: autofan.com)
       
       GMC Typhoon=124 mph (Source: Car and Driver)
       
       Mitsubishi Lancer=112 mph (Source: formen.ign.com)
       
       Internal documents from the U.S. Department of Transportation show that concerned citizens have asked the government repeatedly over the years to regulate speed governor settings, but federal officials have continually balked at such requests. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1971 attempted to establish a maximum governor setting of 95 mph. However, the agency abandoned its effort after receiving scores of letters from irate motorists demanding their right to drive faster than 95 mph. Since then, the Partnership estimates that well over a million Americans have been seriously injured or killed in crashes involving speeds that were not legal anywhere in the nation.
       
       Teenagers are not the only motorists who are prone to driving way too fast, but they are among those most likely to be lured into high-speed driving. As a group, teenagers have the highest crash rate of all motorists. During the past decade alone, more than 50,000 teenagers have been killed on our nation's roads, and hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured. Nearly 40 percent of all teenage deaths in the U.S. result from car crashes.
       
       Resetting the governor will not completely solve the speeding problem for teens; they will still be able to exceed the posted speed limit and drive too fast for conditions on lower-speed roads. However, lowering the governor setting will at least reduce their likelihood of driving -- and crashing -- at very high speeds.
       
       To have the speed governor reset, parents should take all cars driven by their teenagers back to their respective dealers, along with a letter stating that you are concerned for your child's safety and must therefore insist that they fix this fatal flaw in the car's design. Dealers ought to be willing to reset the governor for you free of charge.
       
       While it is possible for motorists to remove the speed governor, doing so requires considerable planning, effort, and know-how. Your teenager is far more likely to drive spontaneously at very high speeds due to peer pressure, alcohol, or just plain ignorance than to plan and prepare for such dangerous behavior in advance.
       
       Parents who believe that lowering the speed governor setting is not necessary because their teens are not prone to such high-risk behavior might heed the warning of Donna Smith, president of Parents Against Speeding Teens (www.pastnh.org). On a beautiful afternoon in August 1996, her teenage son, Jason, and his best friend, Ernie, struck an oncoming van while driving at speeds in excess of 90 mph struck (see photo above). Ernie was killed instantly. Jason died in the helicopter on the way to the hospital. The driver of the van, who was a father of two small children, survived for four years as a quadriplegic before succumbing to complications from his injuries.
       
       "He was just a regular kid," Smith said of her son. "He liked to listen to music and skateboard and hang out with his friends. He was just a normal kid...They never think it's going to happen to them. They just thought they were having fun," she said.
       
       Smith endorses the Partnership's policy of urging parents to lower the governor setting on their kids' cars.
       
       "It's something so simple that can be done," she said. "Parents tell me, 'There's nothing I can do. I can't be with them all the time.' This is kind of a way that you can be with them. In a way it's like putting a little guardian angel on their shoulder."
       
       "It's not that you don't trust them," Smith added. "But why hand them high-risk behavior on a silver platter? By having the governor adjusted on the car, you're taking that high-risk behavior away from them. They still are able to drive the car, but within limits."
       
       The Partnership is exploring the potential financial liability of car manufacturers who set governors at speeds that are not legal anywhere in the nation. In the meantime, we are urging parents to take this step to protect their children now.
       
       Concerning the maximum speed at which governors should be reset, factors that must be considered include the maximum speed limit in the state or states in which your teen will be driving and the maximum speed limit on roads or highways where your teen is permitted to drive. To view a list of maximum speed limits by state,click here.
       
       Parents might also keep in mind that, while many people have attempted to justify speeding on the grounds that they are "just keeping up with traffic," trying to keep up with motorists who are driving way too fast is not an effective safety strategy. Besides increasing the risk of crashing, you also greatly increase your risk of being injured or killed in a crash. After 50 mph, the impact of a crash doubles for every 10 mph increase in speed. Thus, a crash at 80 mph releases 400 percent more energy than a crash at 60 mph. In addition, our nation's most advanced occupant protection systems, including air bags and seat belts, were not designed to protect motorists even at today's legal highway speeds, let alone at illegal speeds.
       
       Rather than encouraging teens to keep up with traffic, parents should forbid their teens from driving on roads and highways where average driving speeds far exceed the posted speed limit. In communities where speeding is now rampant on all roads and highways, it would be best to prohibit teens from driving until the problem is resolved.
       
       If you have questions, please contact the Partnership at info@crashprevention.org. Also, please let us know how the dealers respond to your request and whether they attempt to charge you for this service.
       
       Besides lowering the speed governor setting, parents are strongly urged to forbid their teens from talking on hand-held and hands-free cell phones while driving. You can set a good example for them by staying off the phone yourself while driving.
       
       For additional resources on teen driving, visit the Reports and Brochures section of our web site.

       The web site of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles includes a questionnaire developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to help motorists determine whether they are aggressive drivers. Unfortunately, the questionnaire illustrates the government's fundamental misunderstanding about the roots of aggressive driving and how to cure it.
       
       Here are the first three questions, to which motorists who are not aggressive are expected to answer "Yes".
       
       Overtake other vehicles only on the left?
       
       Avoid blocking passing lanes?
       
       Yield to faster traffic by moving to the right?
       
       Sadly, questions two and three feed right into the hands of aggressive drivers, who generally consider themselves to be safe drivers and the "slow driver blocking the fast lane" to be the problem.
       
       In fact, aggressive driving is, at root, a speed problem. Because of a general lack of speed limit awareness and enforcement, the vast majority of motorists on today's roads are speeding and driving too fast for conditions. Excessive speed combined with heavy traffic is a formula for aggressive driving. For example, motorists who tailgate are by definition driving too fast for conditions. Likewise, most passing behavior on today's highways consists of motorists trying to get ahead of other motorists who already are exceeding the posted speed limit.
       
       Those who are victimized by aggressive drivers often are the only ones attempting to obey the law. Yet both the government and the American Automobile Association (AAA) have created educational campaigns that emphasize what people should do to stay out of the way of aggressive drivers rather than the need for aggressive drivers to slow down and obey the speed limit. These campaigns have left the impression that victims of aggressive driving bring this dangerous behavior on themselves.
       
       For example, law-abiding motorists should not be obligated to move over and yield the right of way to speeders. Yet that is precisely what these campaigns have implied. For their own safety, motorists should do whatever they can to stay out of the path of speeders, but this task is nearly impossible on many roads where speeding is now rampant -- even in the far right lane of multi-lane highways. And speeders do not legally have the right of way. Rather than telling motorists to make way for speeders, the government should be focused on doing what is necessary to enforce the speed limits. No one will be safe until this step is taken.
       
       In recent years, much has been written in the United States about the epidemic of aggressive driving. In response, many state officials have attempted to formally define aggressive driving and adopt new laws to deter this deadly behavior. One popular definition is "any combination of three behaviors, including speeding, running red lights, improper lane changes, tailgating, and failing to yield the right of way," occurring in succession over a specified period of time and space.
       
       The Partnership considers these new definitions and laws to be both arbitrary and unnecessary. Consistent and appropriate penalties for speeding, combined with ongoing education about the dangers of excessive speed, would go a long way in deterring aggressive driving behavior. Trying to suggest that such behaviors are dangerous only when they occur in some specified combination undermines both education and enforcement efforts.
       
       Such confused definitions and policies may be due to the fact that neither the government nor AAA wants to challenge the American public on the speed issue. Evidence for this can be found in not only the lack of educational campaigns about the dangers of excessive speed but also the lack of speed limit enforcement on roads throughout the nation.
       
       The questionnaire developed by NHTSA contains these four questions about speed. Do you:
       
       Maintain speed limits appropriate for conditions?
       
       Drive below the speed limit when conditions warrant?
       
       Drive at slower speeds in construction zones?
       
       Maintain proper speeds around roadway crashes?
       
       Nowhere does it ask whether motorists drive within the posted speed limit at all times and refrain from passing other motorists who already are driving at or above the speed limit. These questions lie at the very heart of aggressive driving. Their absence in this questionnaire suggests that the authors may be aggressive drivers themselves.
       
       Many traffic safety officials have, in fact, resisted the notion that speeding by itself is aggressive or even dangerous, reflecting personal biases that most likely result from their own driving habits. However, unless and until aggressive driving is honestly defined, there will be no cure.
       

       On the web site of the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR), state highway officials suggest that the cell phone controversy has been an unfortunate distraction from bigger highway safety issues.
       
       A great deal of media attention was focused last year on driving and talking on a cell phone, the web site (www.statehighwaysafety.org) reads. "NAGHSR feels that while distracted driving is an important highway safety matter, a disproportionate amount of time has been spent on the issue which has taken away media time from important issues like impaired driving and occupant protection."
       
       It includes a quote from new NAGHSR chairwoman Marsha Lembke: "We know by getting people to buckle up and not mixing alcohol and drugs with driving we can save a significant number of lives. I hope that during my term we can refocus on these key issues.
       
       At their annual meeting in the fall of 2001, NAGHSR adopted a policy opposing federal legislation that would penalize states for not restricting the use of cell phones or other electronic devices, "particularly since many have life-saving benefits." Rather, the association said, the federal government should fund considerably more research to determine the scope and nature of distracted driving.
       
       The Partnership for Safe Driving knows all too well that, when used in the context of highway safety, the term "research" often means nothing more than "counting dead bodies." We are deeply troubled, therefore, by those who continue to call for more research while denying the results of countless studies that already have demonstrated up to a four-fold increase in the risk of crashing for cell phone users versus non-users.
       
       Even if one wishes to dispute these results, it is difficult to ignore surveys like the one published in May 2000 by Farmers Insurance Groups. In that survey, 87 percent of adults said they believed that using a cell phone while driving impairs driving ability, and 40 percent reported that they already have had close calls with drivers who were talking on cell phones.
       
       The Partnership for Safe Driving is puzzled by the unwillingness of NAGHSR to recognize the full range of dangerous driving behavior on our nation's roads. Like a badly broken record, this influential organization continues to talk about drunk driving as if it is the only form of dangerous driving worthy of attention. The organization also echoes the federal government in peddling seat belts as a primary prevention strategy rather than recognizing them for what they actually are -- the last line of defense on our nation's roads, after every effort to prevent motorists from crashing has failed.
       
       Their lack of urgent attention to speeding, cell phone use, drowsy driving, and other deadly behaviors may signal that members of NAGHSR are engaging in high-risk behaviors themselves and do not want to change their own driving habits. It might also reflect the influence of companies in the U.S. that do not have the best interests of the American people at heart. This includes the cell phone industry, which has lobbied hard in recent years to prevent lawmakers from regulating cell phone use while driving.
       
       A primary tactic employed by the industry has been to tout the wonderful safety benefits of having a cell phone for emergencies as an excuse not to impose restrictions on cell phone use in non-emergencies.
       
       Curiously, a press release from NAGHSR in May 2001 reads just like a press release from the cell phone lobby. It is full of praise for motorists who use cell phones in emergencies. It even gives an example of one couple's "heroic actions" in using their cell phone to call the police after witnessing a hit and run. The NAGHSR press release quotes Tom Wheeler, president and CEO of Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. "The Garton's heroic actions exemplify the important role individuals and wireless phones play in emergency situations. Wireless phones helped reduce response times and have assisted in the apprehension of drunk, impaired and aggressive drivers.
       
       What this press release doesn't say is how often people are now using their cell phones to call the police after witnessing crashes caused by motorists who were also using their cell phones. Nor does it point out that, with very few exceptions, motorists should be able to pull over to the side of the road before making an emergency call. In addition, this press release makes no distinction between using cell phones in life-threatening emergencies versus using them in non-emergency situations.
       
       NAGHSR is a non-profit association representing highway safety offices in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Its members are appointed by their governors to administer federal and state highway safety funds and implement state highway plans. To protest NAGHSR's narrow focus in general and their lack of courage on the cell phone issue in particular, please send e-mail to headquarters@statehighwaysafety.org
       

       While motorists in the U.S. continue to plow into each other and run over pedestrians while chatting away on their cell phones, many nations around the world have taken steps to protect their citizens. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the following countries have banned hand-held cell phones while driving:
       
       Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey.
       
       The Partnership for Safe Driving wonders what it will take to wake our elected leaders up to the tragedies unfolding every day across the nation. So far in the U.S., only New York State has banned hand-held cell phones while driving. The rest of the nation's leaders are still turning a blind eye to this raging epidemic. Despite the more than 11 million crashes on our nation's roads each year, our government seems to think that we have no road safety problem at all, only a boredom problem.
       

       Planning a summer road trip? Here's some information that might help you minimize the risk of turning your long-awaited vacation into a nightmare.
       
       The Partnership for Safe Driving has obtained a list of the cities and states in the U.S. with the highest road fatality rates per population. These figures are for the year 2000 -- the latest year for which data are available -- and come from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's "Traffic Safety Facts 2000."
       
       Below are the ten most dangerous states for road travel, based on per capita fatality rates. It is clear from this list that the states with fatality rates well above the national average are located primarily in the south and the west. Mississippi leads the way, with a per capita fatality rate that is more than twice the national average. Wyoming and South Carolina are not far behind. The federal government does not publish a similar table on injuries, but they are expected to average about 85 times the fatality rate.
       
       Fatality Rates By State, Per 100,000 Population/Per Year
       
       1. Mississippi: 33.70
       
       2. Wyoming: 28.97
       
       3. South Carolina: 27.60
       
       4. Montana: 24.96
       
       5. Arkansas: 24.78
       
       6. New Mexico: 23.11
       
       7. Tennessee: 23.09
       
       8. Alabama: 22.36
       
       9. West Virginia: 22.27
       
       10. South Dakota: 22.26
       
       National Average: 15.23
       
       Below is a list of additional states with per capita fatality rates above the already high national average. Once again, these states are concentrated primarily in the south and west. They are:
       
       11. Arizona: 21.59
       
       12. Louisiana: 21.18
       
       13. Missouri: 20.88
       
       14. Kentucky: 20.53
       
       15. Idaho: 20.50
       
       16. Florida: 19.69
       
       17. Georgia: 19.57
       
       18. Oklahoma: 19.33
       
       19. North Carolina: 18.93
       
       20. Texas: 18.73
       
       21. Kansas: 17.28
       
       22. Nevada: 17.26
       
       23. Utah: 16.90
       
       24. Colorado: 16.34
       
       25. Nevada: 16.18
       
       26. Delaware: 16.02
       
       27. Alaska: 15.77
       
       28. Iowa: 15.35
       
       We have also obtained a list for the year 2000 of the 14 cities with per capita fatality rates above the national average. As you can see, several of what appear to be the most troubled cities are located in Florida, suggesting serious road safety problems for metropolitan areas in The Sunshine State. Beyond Florida, numerous other cities in the south also made the list. In fact, the only ones outside the south to make this list were Salt Lake City, San Bernardino, Dayton, and Kansas City.
       
       Fatality Rates by City, Per 100,000 Population/Per Year
       
       1. Louisville, KY: 32.39
       
       2. Chattanooga, TN: 23.14
       
       3. Tampa, FL: 22.74
       
       4. San Bernardino, CA: 21.17
       
       5. Knoxville, TN: 20.13
       
       6. Baton Rouge, LA: 19.31
       
       7. Orlando, FL: 18.28
       
       8. Salt Lake City, UT: 17.61
       
       9. Atlanta, GA: 16.33
       
       10. Dayton, OH: 16.25
       
       11. Fort Lauderdale, FL: 15.75
       
       12. Kansas City, KS: 15.63
       
       13. Miami, FL: 15.45
       
       14. Jackson, MS: 15.29
       
       In an upcoming issue of Crash Prevention News, we will analyze the stability of these rankings over time as well as possible causes for higher fatality rates in certain states and cities.
       
       Please note that just because your planned vacation spots do not appear on these lists does not mean that road travel where you are headed will be safe. The U.S. is experiencing an epidemic of dangerous driving throughout the nation. Motorists should be on high alert wherever they travel this summer.

       A report issued last month by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) indicates that other nations are using photo enforcement technology for speeding and red-light running far more extensively than in the U.S., and with virtually none of the complaints about privacy that are so commonplace in this country.
       
       According to the IIHS, red-light cameras, a relatively recent adjunct to traditional police enforcement in the U.S., have been used in Australia since 1981. Other countries that use them are Brazil, Canada, Israel, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan and numerous European countries. Many of these nations deploy cameras extensively, not as a supplement to traditional enforcement but as the primary enforcement strategy.
       
       By contrast, fewer than ten major cities in the U.S. have authorized the use of red-light cameras. Speed cameras, also called photo radar, are currently deployed only in the District of Columbia. Around the world, they are used in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom.
       
       Partnership board member Ralph Blessing recently visited Brazil during a two-week business trip. He was surprised to find speed cameras in the capital city of Brasilia at regular intervals on all major roads. Motorists there are given advance warning of the presence of the cameras. In some places they are also alerted to how fast they are driving through permanent speed monitoring devices. And despite high overall crime rates, compliance with posted speed limits in Brazilian cities appears to be much stronger than in the U.S.
       
       "My Brazilian colleagues told me that such efforts have broad public support without any of the talk about privacy and the like," said Blessing. "To them it's a cut-and-dry public safety matter."
       
       The volume of traffic has increased dramatically in the U.S. over the past few decades, while resources for traditional police enforcement in most states have declined. In fact, in many communities it is almost non-existent. The result is rampant speeding and red-light running along with growing fear of death and injury on our nation's roads.
       
       In addition to the sheer number of personnel that would be needed to enforce laws through traditional methods (not even the entire U.S. military could pull it off), high traffic volume makes police enforcement physically impossible. With several lanes of heavy traffic moving at illegal speeds, there simply is no way for police to safely cut in and apprehend lawbreakers. Photo enforcement, combined with ongoing television and radio campaigns about the dangers of excessive speed and red-light running, are the obvious solutions.
       
       While other nations have recognized this reality, complaints about the use of photo enforcement in the U.S. have successfully limited the number and scope of such programs. Many communities have not even tried to implement this life-saving technology. Others have established extensive programs only to have them stopped by court order.
       
       In 2001, a widely publicized lawsuit in San Diego temporarily halted the city's red-light camera program and resulted in the dismissal of some 300 citations. A photo enforcement program in Denver also was suspended after a judge ruled that the program gave illegal police powers to a private contractor.
       
       In fact, successful challenges to the programs have been based solely on how they are operated, not on the privacy argument. The San Diego judge specifically upheld the constitutionality of the program. Still, critics continue to attract considerable media attention based on their assertion of a right to privacy while breaking laws on public roads.
       
       Meanwhile, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that red-light running results in more than 250,000 crashes each year in the U.S. No one keeps accurate statistics on the prevalence of speeding as a factor in crashes. However, the Partnership believes it is the single-most important variable in predicting both the likelihood and severity of crashes.