Crash Prevention News

       The Texas Transportation Institute this month released its 2002 Urban Mobility Study, an annual report that assesses the impact of traffic congestion on road travelers in the U.S. The study examined 75 urban areas in the nation and found that Americans are spending more and more time stuck in traffic. On average, the time penalty for peak period travelers jumped from 16 hours in 1982 to 62 hours in the year 2000.
       
       In response, the authors of the study recommended a host of solutions, including building more roads, increasing mass transit, improving efficiency, managing road demand, and changing development patterns.
       
       However, a review of the study by the Partnership for Safe Driving revealed that so-called "incident delays," in the form of crashes, broken down vehicles, and spilled truck loads, comprised more than half of all delays in the 75 urban areas studied. Yet, the authors of the study made only passing reference to the high incident rate, recommending that the government improve incident response times and clear vehicles more quickly.
       
       Studies of traffic congestion most frequently are used to bolster the call for more road construction. But building more roads without reducing the high incident rate only ensures that future roads will be as crippled by crashes and vehicle breakdowns as the present ones are.
       
       A percentage analysis of delays caused by crashes versus broken down vehicles is not available. However, studies indicate that more than 11 million crashes take place annually on U.S. roads, and newspaper and radio traffic reports make clear that crashes are pervasive during rush-hour traffic. Crashes also create by far the longest delays of all types of incidents.
       
       The U.S. Department of Transportation acknowledges that most crashes are not accidents. In fact, government officials now forbid their employees to use the term "accident" when describing crashes in press releases. That's because they know that crashes most often are the direct result of dangerous and irresponsible driving, including speeding, improper lane changes, tailgating, running red lights and stop signs, operating a vehicle with poor brakes or tires, improperly loading vehicles, drowsy driving, impaired driving, talking on phones (hand-held or hands-free), and reading the newspaper, eating, or putting on makeup while driving.
       
       While heavy traffic congestion creates a more demanding environment for motorists, it usually is not by itself the primary cause of crashing. Heavy congestion simply makes common sense and compliance with traffic laws that much more important.
       
       Despite this well-known fact, the federal government currently has no programs in place to reduce the overall crash rate. What they have instead is a patchwork of initiatives, including Buckle Up America, crashworthiness testing, and airbag promotion, designed to mitigate the damage caused by crashes. They also have programs to "manage" so-called incidents more efficiently with freeway surveillance systems, incident response teams, motorist assistance patrols, and other measures designed to detect, respond to, and clear crashes and breakdowns.
       
       The only significant federal crash prevention program in the U.S. focuses on impaired driving. While this remains a very serious problem, traffic safety experts know that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is only one of many factors contributing to the high crash rate. In fact, impaired driving is a factor in nearly 40 percent of fatal crashes but only 7 percent of the total crash rate (Source: www.madd.org). In addition, most drunk drivers are not on the roads during rush-hour traffic, so programs that focus only on impairment can do little to reduce crashes and ease congestion during rush-hour traffic.
       
       Influenced by federal priorities, state programs to educate motorists about the many forms of dangerous driving and enforce traffic laws have endured drastic cuts over the past two decades, to the point that most communities spend almost nothing on this function anymore. In addition, the government, automobile and insurance industries have steadfastly ignored the most promising crash prevention technologies, including Intelligent Speed Adaptation (see News Archives, Issue 2), which could drastically reduce the overall crash rate without requiring additional resources for enforcement. The government also has shown itself to be soft on cell phone use, which the Partnership estimates is now a major contributing factor in rush-hour crashes.
       
       To understand the magnitude of the nation's crashing problem and its impact on road travel, below are some excerpts from the "Metro in Brief" section of The Washington Post on randomly selected days in 2001. These excerpts provide but a small glimpse into road travel in communities throughout the U.S.
       
       "A tractor-trailer, two cars and a tour bus collided on the Capital Beltway in Virginia yesterday in a chain-reaction accident that injured 17 people, set off a raging fire and backed up traffic for much of the afternoon." (The Washington Post, March 19, 2001)
       
       "Several early morning accidents today around the Capital Beltway snarled traffic for hours and sent more than a dozen people to area hospitals." (The Washington Post, April 26, 2001)
       
       "One person was killed this morning in an accident on Interstate 395 near Pentagon City Mall, prompting police to close the northbound lanes near the Pentagon for several hours..." (The Washington Post, May 1, 2001)
       
       "A truck carrying hot tar overturned on the inner loop of the Capital Beltway in Alexandria this morning, forcing authorities to shut down all lanes." The road was expected to be shut down for two to five hours. (The Washington Post, June 27, 2001)
       
       "The morning drive from Maryland into Virginia for some drivers stretched into two- and three-hour commutes after a tractor trailer loaded with garbage snapped in half... And other accidents on and near the Beltway caused further delays... These included a school bus that collided with a truck..." (The Washington Post, December 4, 2001)
       
       "A two-car accident on the outer loop of the Capital Beltway killed one person last night, Maryland State Police said, "The accident blocked three lanes of the outer loop for several hours," (The Washington Post, December 21, 2001)
       
       The story is the same in cities throughout the nation. For example, in Atlanta at 10:06 a.m. on May 24, 2001, Live Traffic Reports from Mapquest noted no less than 11 crashes causing backups in Atlanta. At 4:13 p.m. that same day, Atlanta reported 13 new crashes. And at approximately 5:30 p.m. on the same day, the city reported nine additional crashes causing delays. At the same time, New York City reported 11 crashes causing delays throughout the city. Long Island traffic reported four more. In Miami, 5 crashes were causing delays at that particular moment on May 24. Far from being unusual, it was just a typical day for road travel in urban communities throughout the nation.
       
       The mobility study indicates that, on average, mobility is not improving in urban areas. It is getting worse. The congested periods are getting longer and the number of people affected is growing. So those who have come to accept the high fatality and injury rates on our nation's roads as merely the cost of doing business will nonetheless be unable to escape the endless delays and traffic jams that these crashes continue to create.
       

       According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, large trucks are involved in a disproportionate share of fatal crashes based on their numbers on the road and the miles they travel.
       
       Large trucks are defined as tractor trailers, single-unit trucks, and cargo vans weighing more than 10,000 pounds. Nationwide, more than 5,000 people were killed in large truck crashes during the year 2000. Of these, 14 percent were truck occupants, 74 percent were occupants of passenger cars, and 10 percent were pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists. In addition, tens of thousands of people are injured each year in crashes with large trucks.
       
       The high rate of large-truck involvement in fatal and injury-producing crashes appears to result from the frightening combination of sheer size, poorly maintained brakes and tires, and fatigued drivers.
       
       Trucks often weigh 20 to 30 times as much as passenger vehicles. Thus, in head-to-head combat with passenger vehicles, trucks always win. It is therefore ironic that with so many large trucks on the road, the government, automobile manufacturers, and insurance industry - including the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - continue to spend the bulk of their traffic safety dollars on efforts to make crashing safer rather than to prevent crashes. Not even the highest priced, most sophisticated automobile in the nation, with the fanciest air bags and seatbelts, can protect a motorist from the impact of a large truck, even when traveling at relatively low speeds.
       
       Because of their size and weight, large trucks also require considerably more stopping distance than passenger vehicles. Yet, approximately 30 percent of U.S. trucks routinely fail inspection, more than half of them because of defective brakes and tires. Clearly, the punishment does not fit the crime if so many trucking companies feel comfortable putting obviously defective trucks on the road each day. While the fines for failed inspections can in fact be substantial, sympathetic judges routinely reduce these fines drastically, to the point that they are inconsequential.
       
       In addition, while European truckers are limited to working nine hours per day, U.S. truck drivers are allowed to work up to 16 hours per day - ten hours at a stretch - with only eight hours off between shifts. Research shows that the risk of crashing increases considerably after eight to ten hours of driving.
       
       In April 2000 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration unveiled a proposal to increase the maximum period of driving without rest from 10 to 12 hours but require longer periods of rest in between. The administration also proposed a requirement that large trucks be equipped with tamperproof electronic recorders that keep track of the number of hours a truck is driven. Europe is expected to adopt this requirement soon. The current U.S. system requires only handwritten logbooks, which the Insurance Institute said are falsified so regularly that truck drivers call them comic books.
       
       Under current laws, both motor carriers and drivers have strong incentives to exceed the maximum driving hours since they are paid either by the mile or by the load rather than by the number of hours worked. Many truck drivers routinely work up to 100 hours per week.
       
       Parents Against Tired Truckers (www.patt.org) is a national advocacy group based in Maine that is made up of people whose loved ones were killed by truck drivers who fell asleep at the wheel. Some of them lost their entire families in these crashes. PATT strongly supports the use of electronic recorders to replace the logbooks but strongly opposes increasing the amount of hours truckers legally can spend behind the wheel. The Partnership for Safe Driving agrees with them and is appalled even at the suggestion of increasing driving hours. We also agree with PATT that truck drivers should be paid by the hour, not by the mile or by the load. The current system not only encourages truckers to work too many hours without rest but also encourages them to speed.
       
       In any case, fierce opposition by the trucking industry has stalled the entire proposal for the past two years. Much of the industry's criticism is aimed at the recorders, which they describe as heavy-handed but which so obviously would prevent them from continuing to perpetrate the fraud upon which the industry has come to depend.
       
       

       Call it a Breath for Life. The latest approach to preventing motorists from driving under the influence of alcohol has little to do with traditional methods like license suspension, mandatory jail time, and court-ordered treatment programs. Rather, it is driven by technology.
       
       Despite more than 20 years of education and lobbying to deter this deadly behavior, impaired driving remains a serious problem in the U.S. Nationally, alcohol is a factor in 40 percent of all fatal crashes, and in some states it is even higher than that. After years of modest declines in the rate of drunk driving, alcohol-related fatalities in the year 2000 jumped by the largest percentage in history.
       
       In response to the poor outcomes of traditional legal remedies, most states have authorized judges to use the breath analyzer ignition interlock device as an optional sanction for drunk drivers. The Partnership for Safe Driving recently requested a demonstration of the interlock device by 1-800-STOP-DWI (www.stopdwi.com ) in Maryland. Overall, we were very impressed with the system.
       
       An ignition interlock device connects a breath analyzer to a vehicle's ignition. To start the car, motorists are required to blow into the analyzer. If the breath test indicates that the motorist's blood alcohol concentration meets or exceeds the legal limit, the car will not start. A rolling retest requires that the motorist give at least two additional breath samples after the car has been started. This is done to ensure that someone else did not blow into the device in order to start the car for the driver. If the driver fails a rolling retest, the vehicle's horn will automatically begin honking and the lights will start flashing until the driver pulls over and turns off the car.
       
       In most interlock programs, the offending motorist does not purchase but rather leases the equipment, which is monitored by the leasing company. The installation fee is $100 to $150, and the monthly rental fee is around $65, both of which are paid for by the offending motorist.
       
       Ignition interlocks also may be purchased voluntarily by the public, for instance to install on the car of a teen driver or another member of the family who has a drinking problem. If the system is not court-ordered and therefore does not require regular monitoring, the one-time cost is around $800.
       
       A position paper published in July 2001 by the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety provided an in-depth analysis of the benefits of ignition interlock systems as well as significant obstacles that stand in the way of broader acceptance and deployment. Highlights of their findings are presented here.
       
       The council found that, over the past decade, four nations adopted interlock programs - the U.S., Sweden, Canada, and Australia - and at least six additional countries currently are studying the system. Interlocks most often are used to prevent motorists with prior DWI offenses from driving impaired again.
       
       The U.S. currently has more interlocks in use than any other nation. Still, only two to three percent of all DWI offenders enter interlock programs, even though the option is available to many more offenders. In the 43 states with interlock enabling legislation, interlock use among DWI offenders rarely exceeds ten percent. The exception is when interlocks are permitted in place of significant punishment. In that instance, 62 percent of offenders choose the interlock program.
       
       In most cases, the device is installed for six to 18 months. It has been found to reduce the recurrence of DWIs by anywhere from 40 to 95 percent for as long as the interlock device remains on the car. However, the benefits generally do not extend beyond use of the device. The council suggested that the benefits of interlocks could be enhanced if the duration of use were extended.
       
       The council also found that the current practice of requiring a period of hard suspension prior to interlock eligibility is making it difficult to place interlock devices on the vehicles of the most persistent drinking drivers. For example, someone with three prior DWI offenses may be required to remain free of further DWI offenses for at least three years before becoming eligible for an interlock device. Because of recurring problems with drinking and driving, some of the worst offenders never become eligible for the program.
       
       Meanwhile, researchers estimate that as many as 80 percent of motorists whose licenses are suspended continue to drive anyway. An experiment in Maryland found that 27 percent of suspended DWI offenders actually reported to their probation officers while driving a vehicle!
       
       The council also found that because the perceived risk of being caught driving on a suspended license is so low, many motorists who currently are given the option of either having an interlock device installed or having their license suspended are likely to choose suspension.
       
       For these reasons, it might prove more beneficial simply to require that the device be installed immediately on the vehicles of all offending motorists. This approach currently faces strong resistance from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) because they do not perceive the interlock system to be a suitable punishment for DWI offenders. The council suggested that requiring the interlock to be installed for longer periods of time may enhance the public perception of it as a punishment, in addition to reducing the recidivism rate.
       
       However, the council recommended that rather than basing removal of the device solely on specific time internals, it should be determined according to other pre-established criteria as well. In some European nations, for example, biological markers already are used as a criterion for reinstating licenses. These include the measurement of various chemicals and proteins in the body that indicate a person's level of alcohol consumption over a specified period of time.
       
       Overall, the Partnership for Safe Driving found the interlock device to be somewhat difficult to blow into, similar to blowing up a tight balloon. We also consider the cost, while not substantial, to be significant for the average American. Add to that the potential embarrassment created by having the device required on one's car, and it seems likely that most motorists would not welcome the idea.
       
       Therefore, unlike MADD, we are able to see ignition interlocks as a punishment as well as a deterrent. While it would not be sufficient punishment by itself for motorists who are involved in injury-producing crashes, it could conceivably be a suitable punishment for those have not yet harmed anyone else on the road. Particularly if it were required for all first-time offenders, and the required length of installation were extended to several years, the interlock program might give motorists with drinking problems a chance to clean up their acts. We believe the interlock may be the best way to breathe new life into what is now a relatively dated campaign to deter drunk driving in the U.S.
       
       We are primarily concerned that motorists who accept the interlock program in lieu of another punishment be monitored closely by the courts so that they do not find a way to circumvent the system, such as by driving a different vehicle.
       
       In addition, the Partnership is looking forward to watching interlock technology evolve. We are optimistic that in time the breath test device will be easier to blow into and the cost of installation and long-term use will come down. We hope that, with these improvements, the interlock system may eventually be viewed not just as a punishment and deterrent for DWI offenders but as a primary prevention strategy for the broader population, presumably in exchange for lower insurance premiums.
       

       The federal government has issued a new brochure for motorists who tow trailers on U.S. roads. This brochure, titled "Towing a Trailer: Being Equipped for Safety," includes information on proper loading and weight distribution of cargo and equipment, state and local requirements for towing a trailer, how to measure the weight of a trailer, how the size and weight of a trailer affect the selection of a tow vehicle, and the hitching, braking, and wiring systems that connect tow vehicles with trailers.
       
       According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly 59,000 crashes occur each year involving passenger vehicles towing trailers, resulting in more than 28,000 injuries.
       
       To access their brochure,
       click here.
       

       A preliminary survey of 2001 crime statistics by the Federal Bureau of Investigations indicates that major crimes in the United States rose last year for the first time in a decade. This significant reversal in what had been a much ballyhooed downward trend in crime may signal that higher crash, injury and fatality rates are not far behind.
       
       The survey indicated that, overall, major crime was up by two percent from the previous year. The largest increase was in the West, followed by the South and the Midwest. Those killed in the September 11th attacks were not included in the survey.
       
       Experts agree that both economics and demographics play a crucial role in the number of crimes committed. Thus the sagging economy is believed to be a factor in the 2001 crime rate. The other major factor is the steady increase in the teenage population, which is the age group most likely to commit crimes.
       
       The crash rate bears both similarities and differences when compared to the crime rate. Unlike traditional crimes, car crashes historically have increased with a strong economy and decreased when the economy was weak. But the crash rate also is heavily influenced by population trends, and here the influence is similar to that of crime. Just as teenagers and young adults are the most likely to engage in traditional crimes, they are also the group most likely to engage in illegal and high-risk driving behavior.
       
       Nationally, the number of children age 10 to 14 increased 20 percent during the past decade. The 10-to-14 category, mainly children of baby boomers, increased in nearly all states. According to the U.S. Census, more than 20 million children will reach high school age within two years.
       
       This trend is juxtaposed against the graying of the baby boomers. According to the U.S. Census, the 65 and older age group will exceed 50 million by the year 2020, accounting for approximately one-fifth of the driving population in the U.S. As that population ages, many elderly Americans who should no longer be driving at all because of physical limitations, but for whom few other options are available due to the dearth of reliable public transportation, will be sharing the roads with a large population of young, reckless drivers. These young drivers also are the first generation of Americans raised by parents who generally have shown no regard for traffic laws. Thus, their tendency to speed, run red lights, talk on cell phones, and engage in other high-risk behaviors behind the wheel is likely to be even greater than past generations.
       
       The rate of crashes, injuries and fatalities on U.S. roads already is extraordinary. It is difficult to imagine what the future may hold if trends in dangerous driving continue at the current rate.
       
       

       The Associated Press reported on June 25 that a grand jury in New York would consider criminal charges against a bus driver who admitted spending more time gambling than resting before a deadly crash in New York State that investigators said was caused by driver fatigue.
       
       Despite getting little sleep, the driver denied dozing off at the wheel and instead blamed a road bump or a blown tire for sending his charter bus through a railing and 75 feet down an embankment on Sunday, the state police said.
       
       Five passengers, members of a Connecticut church group, were killed and more than 40 were injured. Investigators ruled out problems with the bus or road, the police said.
       
       The same week, CNN reported that four young members of Metro Church in Garland, Texas were killed in a bus crash while on their way to a summer camp in Louisiana.
       
       The bus driver also was also killed in the crash, which took place on Interstate 20 about 30 miles east of Dallas. Thirty-five other passengers, including 33 teens and two counselors, were taken to eight hospitals. At least one was so seriously injured that authorities initially thought the crash victim was dead.
       
       Texas troopers were trying to determine why the bus slammed into a concrete pillar supporting a bridge over the interstate. The impact was so strong that it peeled back the metal from the side of the bus.
       
       Witnesses said the vehicle was weaving prior to running into the guard rail. Once it hit the rail, it lost all control and hit the concrete pillar. DPS Trooper Rob White said there were no skid marks and no indications that the bus driver attempted to stop. He said authorities did not know whether the driver fell asleep but were looking at that among other possibilities.
       
       Earlier in June, CNN reported that at least three people were killed in another bus crash in Texas, which involved a Greyhound. Lt. Judy Altom said the bus collided with a tractor-trailer pulling out of a truck stop at about 4:30 a.m. The truck swerved to avoid another vehicle and was rear-ended by the bus. The bus, carrying 36 passengers and two drivers, was eastbound on Interstate 20 about halfway between Abilene and Midland in west central Texas.
       
       In April, more than a dozen passengers were injured on Interstate 20 in eastern Georgia when a driver on a leased Greyhound bus fell asleep and rear-ended a tractor-trailer.