Drivers call *55 to tell of speeders, weavers
By Elisa CrouchST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH05/29/2007
It began as a number for roadside emergencies — a flat tire, a stalled car, a highway crash.
But Missouri's Star 55 number is being used more and more by drivers to rat on each other.
"We get calls for … speeding, parents who don't have kids belted into their safety seats, someone brandishing a gun in the back seat," said Lt. John Hotz of the Missouri Highway Patrol. "We get domestic disputes. We get reports of a person weaving in and out of traffic and not signaling."
And dispatchers gets reports of drivers who've had too much to drink.
According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, about a quarter of the approximately 10,000 calls made to Missouri's Star 55 (*55) line each month are about a drunk driver, according a report released this spring.
The suspect driver is usually swerving and showing judgment problems, according to the report. In most cases, callers describe the vehicle and provide a license plate number. Between one-fourth to half of those calls lead to an arrest, the report says.
One irresponsible driver can provoke Star 55 calls from several motorists, Hotz said, which is why the percentage isn't higher.
In 1988, the number began as statewide toll-free hot line that drivers could use to call for help.
A year later, state officials determined that the growing prevalence of cell phones would make Star 55 worth having, since drivers were dialing 911 for roadside assistance and many rural areas still lacked 911 service.
The state spends about $10,800 a year on the line. The calls go through Highway Patrol dispatchers, who route them to the nearest patrol headquarters or law enforcement agency. On average, it takes troopers 20 minutes after a call is made to find the bad driver.
Tim Murphy of Oakville said he wished he'd known about the number earlier this spring when a luxury sports car passed him at about 90 mph onto Interstate 55. The car was weaving through four lanes of morning rush-hour traffic and didn't use turn signals, Murphy said. Other motorists were forced to swerve.
"I gasped when I saw what the car was doing," Murphy said.
That week he programmed *55 into his cell phone. "If I'd known it, I definitely would have called it," he said.
More Star 55 calls are made during summer months than any time of the year, according to the federal report. Most calls are made on weekdays.
Illinois doesn't have a Star 55 line, but offers a Star 999 line in the Chicago area. State police encourage drivers in other parts of the state to call 911 when they need to report dangerous situations from the road.
Like Star 55 calls, 911 calls are automatically routed to the nearest state police or law enforcement headquarters.
Illinois doesn't track roadside 911 calls. But Master Sgt. Luis Gutierrez, spokesman for the Illinois State Police, said drivers with cell phones are helping officers get drunk and erratic drivers off the road.
"We can't be everywhere at once," he said. "Having people call has been having an effect. It gets us the information a lot quicker."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
No more blind spots?
by Bob Gillespie
This certainly is an amazing innovation described in the article below, but considering the cost, I think I'll just continue to take that brief glance over my shoulder to check the blind spot area. Some people say they have eliminated the blind spot by the way they set their mirrors.
I can't argue with them, it could be possible, although I'm not able to do it on my car. Why, you say? It's because I don't have those large, up to date convex mirrors on the sides of the car. Even then, there could still be a blind spot area. It's something a person would have to check out.
Here's a good way to check the right blind spot, if there is one. Find a quiet street with a solid row of parked cars and pull alongside of them, as if they were in the other lane of traffic. Now, check the rear view and side view mirrors. You should be able to see all the cars. If you can see all the vehicles except, let's say, half of a car, that's not good enough - what about motorcycles? Repeat the process for the other side of the car.
The above are some of the things I talk about in my defensive driver course, covering every aspect of safe, defensive driving.
New systems monitor blind spot
Digital cameras, radar sensors used in systems
Allan Lamb and Bob McHugh, Special to The province
This column takes an occasional look at new vehicle-safety technology -- how it works and interacts with users.
- - -
Audi calls it Side Assist and Volvo calls it BLIS. Both companies recently introduced us to a new active safety technology that warns a driver about vehicles approaching from what's commonly referred to as the "blind spot" off the rear quarter of a vehicle.
It's unlikely that this technology will end the "he came out of nowhere" explanation for a collision, but it could be beneficial to many drivers.
Currently it's only available on the Audi Q7 and the Volvo S80 in Canada, so it's still early days to judge "real world" effectiveness.
Audi charges $650 for the Side Assist option, but if it catches on as a popular industry-wide option, the price should come down dramatically. And these days that doesn't take too long, especially for optional electronic add-on features.
Although they perform a comparable task and function in a similar way from a driver perspective, the Audi and Volvo blind-spot check systems use quite different technologies.
Rear-bumper mounted radar sensors are used to monitor approaching vehicles (from an adjacent lane) in the Audi Side Assist system. A coloured light strip on the side-mirror housing illuminates when a speeding vehicle is detected within range and a secondary warning alarm sounds if the driver also activates the turn signal on that side.
The bumper sensors send information to a computer that can even identify a motorcycle approach within 50 metres of the rear of the vehicle. It's not active at speeds under 35 km/h and the driver can also choose to turn it off.
An interesting Audi design criteria was that the warning system must not make the driver look bad in the eyes of his or her passengers. The LED light strips on the outside mirrors are positioned so they are only visible from the driver's seat.
Volvo's Blind Spot Information System uses tiny digital cameras built-into the side door mirror assemblies. They take 25 pictures per second that are then fed to and analyzed by a computer.
The system can recognize a motorcycle as well as a car or a truck and even works at night.
There are, however, weather conditions (such as dense fog or blowing snow) in which BLIS may not function.
In such a case, it automatically notifies the driver. BLIS is active from a vehicle speed of 10 km/h and reacts to other vehicles approaching quickly from behind or in an adjacent lane.
Now you could argue that there's no such thing as a blind spot, if the driver has adjusted the side mirrors correctly in the first place.
Then again, you could also argue that the main benefit of a blind spot checking system is that it quickly alerts the driver to a potentially dangerous situation. Driver inattention to the task of driving is the initial cause of a high percentage of vehicle accidents.
In addition to drowsiness or eating on the go, today's driver can be distracted by a multitude of in-car electronic devices, such as a cellphone, an advanced audio system or a navigational system.
In a study released by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April 2006, distractions (including drowsiness) were estimated to be a contributing factor in eight out of every 10 police-reported traffic crashes.
That's about four million vehicle crashes per year -- far from bliss.
Allan Lamb is the executive director of the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation and Bob McHugh is a freelance automotive journalist.
Monday, May 21, 2007
A "smart" solution to road safety
Technion
When Dr. Yotam Abramson, of the Technion in Haifa, carried out a survey of drivers to find out if they looked at stop signs at busy intersections, he was surprised to discover that only 17 out of 80 actually looked at the sign. The rest hardly seemed to notice it.
While some drivers will stop anyway, others do not. And that's the problem. Israel has a high death rate on the roads. Between 2002 and 2006, there were 1,867 fatal accidents on the country's roads (the number of people killed is between 10-20% more). About 480 of these accidents were at intersections, and the majority were at intersections without traffic lights, where the only form of control was a stop, or right of way sign. These were just the fatal accidents, the figures did not include serious or light injuries, or damage to property.
"In many cases, drivers don't see traffic signs, or they don't pay attention to them. They simply don't get the message that they should stop and look," Abramson told ISRAEL21c.
Now Abramson could have the solution. He and Prof. David Mahalal, also of the Technion, have developed a 'smart' road sign designed to reduce accidents by helping drivers make split-second decisions at intersections with no traffic lights.
The sign, which is the first of its kind in the world, sets off strong flashing lights if it detects that a driver entering the secondary road, which does not have the right of way, could be in the line of collision with a vehicle entering from the main street. The solution consists of two video cameras on a pole, one focused on the main street and one on the secondary one. These cameras send information to a computer that processes the video data. When it identifies a collision risk it activates the flashing lights on the stop sign to attract the driver's attention.
Sounds easy, but the technology is complicated because calculations must be accurate. "We don't want to activate the signs too often if there is no just cause because it will erode attention," explains Abramson. "If the lights flash all the time people will start to ignore it, the lights will become part of the background."
The lights are LED lights directed specifically at the driver. "The lights are very strong, but you only see that at their highest level if you are in the correct location," says Abramson.
The signs are now being tested at two dangerous intersections in Tel Aviv, chosen by the municipality because of the high number of accidents that occur there. Both locations have limited visibility, traffic moves quickly, and the driver does not know intuitively who has the right of way.
"I went to visit these sites and people living nearby told me there are is a crash at least once a week, sometimes severe. They told me that every day you hear the screech of tires," says Abramson.
In an initial trial, Abramson found that the use of flashing lights meant 56 out of 80 drivers looked at the sign, a vast improvement on the results without lights.
Abramson is passionate about road safety. The researcher, who has a BSc. and an MSc in computer science from Tel Aviv University, was following a conventional career in the high tech industry when he decided, at the age of 33, that he wanted to do something to try to improve safety on the roads. He gave up his job in 2002, and began studying for his PhD. on intelligent vehicles at the School of Mines in France. At the same time, he took a job for car manufacturer Renault, also working in the same field. Much of his work in this field was on accident prevention, and he studied new in-car technologies designed to alert drivers about potential accidents.
In 2005, Abramson returned to Israel and found a position at the Transportation Research Institute (TRI) of the Technion. His goal was to bring the intelligence he had gained in France back to Israel. Since there is no car manufacturing industry in Israel, the only possible solution was to include this intelligence in external systems like street signs.
That year Abramson and Mahalal won a two-year research tender from the Israel National Authority of Road Safety with cooperation from the Tel Aviv Municipality to develop the smart street sign. They began work in 2006 with two research students. Development of the device is now complete, and evaluation has begun.
For the first month, Abramson will not activate the signs, but will log all events that take place at the intersections. The signs will then be activated the following month and results compared. Once this trial is over, he plans another three-month trial to follow.
"This is a very important project," says Abramson. "There are other projects around the world where people are working on accident prevention but all of them demand that special equipment is installed in a car. That would mean equipping all the cars in a country to make the system work. This is expensive and time-consuming. Our solution is ready for deployment immediately. Nothing needs to be installed in the car, and we are not inventing any new signs.
"The most expensive part of our system is bringing the electricity to the site and we plan to develop a solar-powered version which will be much lower in price. The cost of the cameras and flashing lights is relatively cheap."
There has already been great international interest in the smart signs and Abramson was recently contacted by officials from the US Department of Transportation-sponsored effort called Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems who were interested to learn more about the project.
Abramson's work does not stop there. He and his students have already begun work on a smart sign solution for intersections with traffic lights. The goal here is not to introduce flashing lights, but to delay a green light on one street by one or two seconds if the system notes that someone has run a red light on the intersecting road. "No one will even know that something was activated, but an accident can be prevented," says Abramson, who adds that this technology would be accompanied by enforcement equipment so as not to encourage people to run the lights, knowing that the oncoming traffic would be stopped. Abramson is now in the process of raising funds for this project.
Another project he has up his sleeve is for automatic steering control. At present, car width lanes must be between 3.30 to 3.50 meters in order for the driver to navigate them safely and successfully. As more and more people purchase cars, however, road space is becoming tighter and tighter. "As the number of cars increase we are gradually running out of space on our roads, and we lack space to make them any bigger," says Abramson.
One solution would be to reduce the width of the lanes to between 1.80-2 meters so that more cars could use the existing space. Automatic steering control, which could be over-ridden in an emergency, would ensure that these new narrow lanes could still be driven safely. "This is a very futuristic project, but it's our job to think of things that people may need in 10 years time," says Abramson.
This is far ahead, however. In the meantime, Abramson has high hopes for his first smart sign, which if all goes well he hopes to one day commercialize. "We are very optimistic that the experiment will show that our sign reduces risk," he says. "We full expect it to be a life-saver."
When Dr. Yotam Abramson, of the Technion in Haifa, carried out a survey of drivers to find out if they looked at stop signs at busy intersections, he was surprised to discover that only 17 out of 80 actually looked at the sign. The rest hardly seemed to notice it.
While some drivers will stop anyway, others do not. And that's the problem. Israel has a high death rate on the roads. Between 2002 and 2006, there were 1,867 fatal accidents on the country's roads (the number of people killed is between 10-20% more). About 480 of these accidents were at intersections, and the majority were at intersections without traffic lights, where the only form of control was a stop, or right of way sign. These were just the fatal accidents, the figures did not include serious or light injuries, or damage to property.
"In many cases, drivers don't see traffic signs, or they don't pay attention to them. They simply don't get the message that they should stop and look," Abramson told ISRAEL21c.
Now Abramson could have the solution. He and Prof. David Mahalal, also of the Technion, have developed a 'smart' road sign designed to reduce accidents by helping drivers make split-second decisions at intersections with no traffic lights.
The sign, which is the first of its kind in the world, sets off strong flashing lights if it detects that a driver entering the secondary road, which does not have the right of way, could be in the line of collision with a vehicle entering from the main street. The solution consists of two video cameras on a pole, one focused on the main street and one on the secondary one. These cameras send information to a computer that processes the video data. When it identifies a collision risk it activates the flashing lights on the stop sign to attract the driver's attention.
Sounds easy, but the technology is complicated because calculations must be accurate. "We don't want to activate the signs too often if there is no just cause because it will erode attention," explains Abramson. "If the lights flash all the time people will start to ignore it, the lights will become part of the background."
The lights are LED lights directed specifically at the driver. "The lights are very strong, but you only see that at their highest level if you are in the correct location," says Abramson.
The signs are now being tested at two dangerous intersections in Tel Aviv, chosen by the municipality because of the high number of accidents that occur there. Both locations have limited visibility, traffic moves quickly, and the driver does not know intuitively who has the right of way.
"I went to visit these sites and people living nearby told me there are is a crash at least once a week, sometimes severe. They told me that every day you hear the screech of tires," says Abramson.
In an initial trial, Abramson found that the use of flashing lights meant 56 out of 80 drivers looked at the sign, a vast improvement on the results without lights.
Abramson is passionate about road safety. The researcher, who has a BSc. and an MSc in computer science from Tel Aviv University, was following a conventional career in the high tech industry when he decided, at the age of 33, that he wanted to do something to try to improve safety on the roads. He gave up his job in 2002, and began studying for his PhD. on intelligent vehicles at the School of Mines in France. At the same time, he took a job for car manufacturer Renault, also working in the same field. Much of his work in this field was on accident prevention, and he studied new in-car technologies designed to alert drivers about potential accidents.
In 2005, Abramson returned to Israel and found a position at the Transportation Research Institute (TRI) of the Technion. His goal was to bring the intelligence he had gained in France back to Israel. Since there is no car manufacturing industry in Israel, the only possible solution was to include this intelligence in external systems like street signs.
That year Abramson and Mahalal won a two-year research tender from the Israel National Authority of Road Safety with cooperation from the Tel Aviv Municipality to develop the smart street sign. They began work in 2006 with two research students. Development of the device is now complete, and evaluation has begun.
For the first month, Abramson will not activate the signs, but will log all events that take place at the intersections. The signs will then be activated the following month and results compared. Once this trial is over, he plans another three-month trial to follow.
"This is a very important project," says Abramson. "There are other projects around the world where people are working on accident prevention but all of them demand that special equipment is installed in a car. That would mean equipping all the cars in a country to make the system work. This is expensive and time-consuming. Our solution is ready for deployment immediately. Nothing needs to be installed in the car, and we are not inventing any new signs.
"The most expensive part of our system is bringing the electricity to the site and we plan to develop a solar-powered version which will be much lower in price. The cost of the cameras and flashing lights is relatively cheap."
There has already been great international interest in the smart signs and Abramson was recently contacted by officials from the US Department of Transportation-sponsored effort called Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems who were interested to learn more about the project.
Abramson's work does not stop there. He and his students have already begun work on a smart sign solution for intersections with traffic lights. The goal here is not to introduce flashing lights, but to delay a green light on one street by one or two seconds if the system notes that someone has run a red light on the intersecting road. "No one will even know that something was activated, but an accident can be prevented," says Abramson, who adds that this technology would be accompanied by enforcement equipment so as not to encourage people to run the lights, knowing that the oncoming traffic would be stopped. Abramson is now in the process of raising funds for this project.
Another project he has up his sleeve is for automatic steering control. At present, car width lanes must be between 3.30 to 3.50 meters in order for the driver to navigate them safely and successfully. As more and more people purchase cars, however, road space is becoming tighter and tighter. "As the number of cars increase we are gradually running out of space on our roads, and we lack space to make them any bigger," says Abramson.
One solution would be to reduce the width of the lanes to between 1.80-2 meters so that more cars could use the existing space. Automatic steering control, which could be over-ridden in an emergency, would ensure that these new narrow lanes could still be driven safely. "This is a very futuristic project, but it's our job to think of things that people may need in 10 years time," says Abramson.
This is far ahead, however. In the meantime, Abramson has high hopes for his first smart sign, which if all goes well he hopes to one day commercialize. "We are very optimistic that the experiment will show that our sign reduces risk," he says. "We full expect it to be a life-saver."
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Cell phones and driving
by Bob Gillespie
Everyone knows that talking on the phone while driving is a very hot topic these days, and (almost) everyone seems to agree that it's a poor idea. Meaning of course that it's too distracting for a driver, and is the main factor in a lot of collisions. I would love to know what the 'talking on the phone while driving' people think. I'm referring to the people who use their cell phones on a regular basis while driving.
So if any of you people are reading this, I invite you to submit a post on this blog so we can read about your point of view.
Also, people who are totally against cell phone use while driving are invited to post here also. I'm really stirring up a hornets nest here, aren't I? But this is a topic that just won't go away, and of course various jurisdictions are starting to ban cell phones while driving, or at least requiring hands-free driving.
For a different viewpoint on this subject I would like to quote Leon James, a professor of traffic psychology at the University of Hawaii, who says "multitasking itself is not necessarily distracting, and drivers need to train themselves to multitask without being distracted."
Well, as much as it may shock some people, I agree completely with professor James. I have been a driving instructor for more than 17 years, and I publish a defensive driver course in the form of an ebook, so you might not expect me to have this point of view.
I think multitasking is potentially dangerous unless a person learns safe glance behavior, waits until the traffic situation is not too demanding, and always relegates multitasking to a secondary role. When their full attention is needed for the driving task, then everything else should stop. Also, having very brief, important calls and using a hands-free device are excellent ideas, and so is not talking on the phone at major intersections with heavy traffic.
Think of police officers, tow truck drivers, bus drivers, and taxi drivers who have to multitask while driving. I think the difference is, they've learned how to do it safely. The same goes for driving instructors. While driving, I have had to look for street addresses, check a map, make notes sometimes, and so on, and have never had a mishap because of it.
After having said all that, I do think it's a good idea to just drive with all your attention on the traffic situation all the time. I think most people don't need to talk on the phone while driving. Speaking for myself, I don't do anything else except drive, not even listen to the radio; I do that at home. Besides, I usually don't like what they play on the radio.
In summing up, we really wouldn't need to be talking about banning cell phone use while driving if people could learn to do it in a safe manner. But that won't happen. Cell phone use will be banned before that happens. To the people reading this who do drive and talk in a safe manner, I congratulate you. And oh yes: thank you.
I think you will find the following article very interesting. Requiring drivers to use a headset while talking and driving is a step in the right direction, although I know a lot of people would like a total ban.
Text of Senate Bill 5037· Spreadsheet: State DOT summary of driver distractions (Excel format, 242 kb)
If Second Substitute Senate Bill 5037 passes this year, Washington would join a growing list of states that ban hand-held cell phone use in the car. In 2001, New York became the first state to enact such a law, which is intended to prevent dangerous distractions among a growing number of drivers who dial while driving.
California is the latest state to pass a hands-free cell phone law, in December. Washington's proposal, which passed the state Senate Thursday, is headed to the state House, where it has failed the past few years and where a companion bill failed to make it out of committee this year.
Under the Senate bill, drivers would be able to use only headsets or earpieces to talk on cell phones.
Two other measures, one that would prohibit text-messaging and the second, which would specifically ban teens from using hand-held devices, are under consideration.
In the first few months after New York's highly publicized law took effect, cell phone usage among drivers had dropped by 50 percent, according to a study. But a year later, drivers seemed to return to their old behaviors, with nearly as many drivers using cell phones as before the law passed, as media emphasis waned, said a 2003 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The number of reported collisions in which cell phones contributed has gradually increased in New York since 2002, while the number of citations issued each year for cell-phone violations also has grown, according to statistics from the state's Department of Motor Vehicles.
"You might also look at the increase in cell phone use -- are there more cell phones out there now than six or seven years ago?" said Paul Ertelt, the department's deputy director of communications.
In Washington, D.C., however, which banned hand-held phones in 2004, the number of drivers using hand-held phones is still 50 percent lower than before the law went into effect, the insurance institute reported.
Unlike New York's law, which is a primary offense, Washington's proposal would be a secondary violation, meaning police would need another reason first to stop someone. A citation would cost $101, although the infraction wouldn't stay on drivers' records.
"With any law, some people are going to abide by it and some people won't," said Washington State Patrol Sgt. Monica Hunter, who backs the legislation. "Time will only tell whether people will comply, and that will come from how many stops we make and how many tickets for cell phones come out of that."
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Tracey Eide, D-Federal Way, thinks she has more support behind the bill this year than before. She noted a PEMCO insurance survey last year in which about 80 percent of respondents supported a hands-free law.
"Quite frankly, so many people drive with them, it has become an epidemic. I think we need to realize that we need to have both hands on the wheel," Eide said.
Last year, the Washington State Patrol began tracking collisions in which cell phones and hand-held devices were a factor so that state legislators and officials would have data to examine as they considered regulating cell phone use.
Between January and September 2006, cell phones contributed to 889 crashes, or less than 1 percent of the 101,499 crashes reported, according to the most recent Transportation Department data available. One of the cell-phone related crashes was fatal.
In comparison, about 5 percent of Washington drivers are on their cell phone at any given time, according to a Washington Traffic Safety Commission report in 2005 based on observations of drivers at locations around the state. In 2000, a similar study estimated the cell-phone rate at 2 percent.
Opponents of the legislation question why it singles out cell phones, when drivers also eat, put on makeup or tune the radio, which can be just as distracting and can result in a citation if the behavior leads to an accident. And some question whether the law will be effective, when studies suggest that conversations, and not the devices, are what divert a driver's focus.
"There is some research that says it's the intensity of the conversation that's going to make the biggest difference and there is some validity to it," said Steve Lind, deputy director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, who supports the bill. "But that doesn't also mean you can't be distracted by dialing and holding it up to your ear."
Rep. Judy Clibborn, the House Transportation Committee's chairwoman, said a companion bill introduced earlier this session did not have enough votes to pass out of committee.
"I think some people feel like why pick on cell phone usage when there are so many other things that people do that are distracting," the Mercer Island Democrat said.
House lawmakers are much more enthusiastic about two similar measures that originated in their chamber -- one that would ban teen drivers from using hand-held devices and another that would ban text-messaging while driving, she said.
Eide's bill would exempt emergency vehicles, tow truck operators responding to a disabled vehicle, people using their phone to call 911 and those using a ham radio.
P-I reporter Scott Gutierrez can be reached at 206-448-8334 or scottgutierrez@seattlepi.com.Soundoff (Read 112 comments)What do you think?
Everyone knows that talking on the phone while driving is a very hot topic these days, and (almost) everyone seems to agree that it's a poor idea. Meaning of course that it's too distracting for a driver, and is the main factor in a lot of collisions. I would love to know what the 'talking on the phone while driving' people think. I'm referring to the people who use their cell phones on a regular basis while driving.
So if any of you people are reading this, I invite you to submit a post on this blog so we can read about your point of view.
Also, people who are totally against cell phone use while driving are invited to post here also. I'm really stirring up a hornets nest here, aren't I? But this is a topic that just won't go away, and of course various jurisdictions are starting to ban cell phones while driving, or at least requiring hands-free driving.
For a different viewpoint on this subject I would like to quote Leon James, a professor of traffic psychology at the University of Hawaii, who says "multitasking itself is not necessarily distracting, and drivers need to train themselves to multitask without being distracted."
Well, as much as it may shock some people, I agree completely with professor James. I have been a driving instructor for more than 17 years, and I publish a defensive driver course in the form of an ebook, so you might not expect me to have this point of view.
I think multitasking is potentially dangerous unless a person learns safe glance behavior, waits until the traffic situation is not too demanding, and always relegates multitasking to a secondary role. When their full attention is needed for the driving task, then everything else should stop. Also, having very brief, important calls and using a hands-free device are excellent ideas, and so is not talking on the phone at major intersections with heavy traffic.
Think of police officers, tow truck drivers, bus drivers, and taxi drivers who have to multitask while driving. I think the difference is, they've learned how to do it safely. The same goes for driving instructors. While driving, I have had to look for street addresses, check a map, make notes sometimes, and so on, and have never had a mishap because of it.
After having said all that, I do think it's a good idea to just drive with all your attention on the traffic situation all the time. I think most people don't need to talk on the phone while driving. Speaking for myself, I don't do anything else except drive, not even listen to the radio; I do that at home. Besides, I usually don't like what they play on the radio.
In summing up, we really wouldn't need to be talking about banning cell phone use while driving if people could learn to do it in a safe manner. But that won't happen. Cell phone use will be banned before that happens. To the people reading this who do drive and talk in a safe manner, I congratulate you. And oh yes: thank you.
I think you will find the following article very interesting. Requiring drivers to use a headset while talking and driving is a step in the right direction, although I know a lot of people would like a total ban.
Text of Senate Bill 5037· Spreadsheet: State DOT summary of driver distractions (Excel format, 242 kb)
If Second Substitute Senate Bill 5037 passes this year, Washington would join a growing list of states that ban hand-held cell phone use in the car. In 2001, New York became the first state to enact such a law, which is intended to prevent dangerous distractions among a growing number of drivers who dial while driving.
California is the latest state to pass a hands-free cell phone law, in December. Washington's proposal, which passed the state Senate Thursday, is headed to the state House, where it has failed the past few years and where a companion bill failed to make it out of committee this year.
Under the Senate bill, drivers would be able to use only headsets or earpieces to talk on cell phones.
Two other measures, one that would prohibit text-messaging and the second, which would specifically ban teens from using hand-held devices, are under consideration.
In the first few months after New York's highly publicized law took effect, cell phone usage among drivers had dropped by 50 percent, according to a study. But a year later, drivers seemed to return to their old behaviors, with nearly as many drivers using cell phones as before the law passed, as media emphasis waned, said a 2003 report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
The number of reported collisions in which cell phones contributed has gradually increased in New York since 2002, while the number of citations issued each year for cell-phone violations also has grown, according to statistics from the state's Department of Motor Vehicles.
"You might also look at the increase in cell phone use -- are there more cell phones out there now than six or seven years ago?" said Paul Ertelt, the department's deputy director of communications.
In Washington, D.C., however, which banned hand-held phones in 2004, the number of drivers using hand-held phones is still 50 percent lower than before the law went into effect, the insurance institute reported.
Unlike New York's law, which is a primary offense, Washington's proposal would be a secondary violation, meaning police would need another reason first to stop someone. A citation would cost $101, although the infraction wouldn't stay on drivers' records.
"With any law, some people are going to abide by it and some people won't," said Washington State Patrol Sgt. Monica Hunter, who backs the legislation. "Time will only tell whether people will comply, and that will come from how many stops we make and how many tickets for cell phones come out of that."
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Tracey Eide, D-Federal Way, thinks she has more support behind the bill this year than before. She noted a PEMCO insurance survey last year in which about 80 percent of respondents supported a hands-free law.
"Quite frankly, so many people drive with them, it has become an epidemic. I think we need to realize that we need to have both hands on the wheel," Eide said.
Last year, the Washington State Patrol began tracking collisions in which cell phones and hand-held devices were a factor so that state legislators and officials would have data to examine as they considered regulating cell phone use.
Between January and September 2006, cell phones contributed to 889 crashes, or less than 1 percent of the 101,499 crashes reported, according to the most recent Transportation Department data available. One of the cell-phone related crashes was fatal.
In comparison, about 5 percent of Washington drivers are on their cell phone at any given time, according to a Washington Traffic Safety Commission report in 2005 based on observations of drivers at locations around the state. In 2000, a similar study estimated the cell-phone rate at 2 percent.
Opponents of the legislation question why it singles out cell phones, when drivers also eat, put on makeup or tune the radio, which can be just as distracting and can result in a citation if the behavior leads to an accident. And some question whether the law will be effective, when studies suggest that conversations, and not the devices, are what divert a driver's focus.
"There is some research that says it's the intensity of the conversation that's going to make the biggest difference and there is some validity to it," said Steve Lind, deputy director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, who supports the bill. "But that doesn't also mean you can't be distracted by dialing and holding it up to your ear."
Rep. Judy Clibborn, the House Transportation Committee's chairwoman, said a companion bill introduced earlier this session did not have enough votes to pass out of committee.
"I think some people feel like why pick on cell phone usage when there are so many other things that people do that are distracting," the Mercer Island Democrat said.
House lawmakers are much more enthusiastic about two similar measures that originated in their chamber -- one that would ban teen drivers from using hand-held devices and another that would ban text-messaging while driving, she said.
Eide's bill would exempt emergency vehicles, tow truck operators responding to a disabled vehicle, people using their phone to call 911 and those using a ham radio.
P-I reporter Scott Gutierrez can be reached at 206-448-8334 or scottgutierrez@seattlepi.com.Soundoff (Read 112 comments)What do you think?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Event data recorders
Just the facts, ma'am
By Bruce Landsberg
Bruce Landsberg has served as executive director of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation since 1992.
Jack Webb, who played the matter-of-fact Los Angeles cop in the long-gone Dragnet television series, routinely used to growl his line, "Just the facts, ma'am" to witnesses, solving some heinous crime quickly within the show's 30-minute running time. Wouldn't it be nice if safety matters could be so simply disassembled?
It's a well-known fact that human behavior changes, usually for the better, when people know they are being watched. There's nothing like a speed trap to help drivers suddenly remember the speed limit. Cameras and a variety of devices are watching us almost everywhere: automatic teller machines, banks, retail stores, gambling establishments, airports, subways, busy intersections, and soon, the cabins of airliners.
The data-recording evolution permeates our lives. Suppose there was a way to get just the facts? As general aviation cockpits go to glass and data are easily produced and recorded, flight data recorders may soon be coming to light GA aircraft. Would it cut down on the buzzing incidents or improper aerobatics if pilots knew that their activities were subject to review in the event of an accident?
Red light cameras have been around for about a decade and they are a topic of debate, especially regarding accident reduction, not revenue production — on that, there is no doubt. The U.S. Department of Transportation studied multiple cities and hundreds of intersections.
The DOT found that the cameras reduce side-impact crashes (T-bones) but increase rear-end crashes as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid getting a ticket. However, those crashes tend to be less serious than the typical T-bone accident, and the net annual savings in injuries is on the order of about $39,000 per intersection. The typical answer is, "More studies are planned."
Flight data recorders (FDRs) and cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) have been around for decades on airliners and larger business jets to determine what went wrong after an accident. They measure flight path, aircraft attitude, flight control positions, altitude, engine output, cockpit and air traffic control conversation, and dozens of other variables. The concept has been taken even further to include the analysis of routine flight data to predict problems before they become accidents.
It's difficult to buy a new car these days that does not have an event data recorder, and this is indicative of how such a recorder might appear in our aircraft. You might check the vehicle owner's manual — that's the one nobody reads. A notice will likely advise you of the presence of the device and explain how it will be used. It tracks, among other things, speed, braking, steering, engine parameters, and seat-belt usage and air-bag status — very similar to an FDR.
On some vehicles there is even a GPS-based location tracker that allows a central location to provide directions or, in the event of an accident, to summon help. Divorce lawyers and parents of teen drivers will love the tracking feature, if they can get the data.
Black box information
The data are used for maintenance diagnostics, accident reconstruction, and in court, settling product liability lawsuits. Several states have passed laws that say the data belong to the owner unless a court orders the data to be made available. Insurance companies are prohibited from speculative snooping as a condition of doing business with them, until after an accident, and then only with the court's blessing.
Since 1990, General Motors has equipped more than 7 million vehicles with monitoring capability. When the AOPA Air Safety Foundation was conducting research on technologically advanced aircraft two years ago we came across the following examples:
Data from a black box caused jurors to question the prosecution's argument that a driver was speeding recklessly before a fatal head-on crash with another vehicle. The driver was found not guilty after his truck's black box showed 60 mph at impact — not above 90 mph, as a witness had claimed.
A police officer won a major settlement for severe injuries he suffered when a hearse struck his squad car. The hearse driver claimed that a medical condition caused him to black out before he hit the police car. But the hearse's black box showed that the driver accelerated to 63 mph, about 20 mph faster than the posted speed limit, seconds before he approached the intersection. He then slammed on the brakes one second before impact. These are hardly the actions of an unconscious driver. The black box's information was an unbiased witness to the crash.
The family of a former pro football player killed in a car accident filed a $30 million civil suit claiming the vehicle's air bag deployed after the car hit a pothole, causing him to hit a tree. Data from the black box showed that the air bag deployed on impact, as designed, and that excessive speed was a factor pre-pothole. The family lost the case.
I've written before about some of the more creative interpretations of pilot-in-command responsibility that often result in large settlements to plaintiffs at the expense of manufacturers.
In the vast majority of cases pilots create the problem, according to the NTSB, but its findings are not admissible in court. That encourages dueling experts and massive expense to revisit the issue. It seems to me that access to unbiased facts would be useful to both sides in getting to the truth, which is, of course, what we're all looking for. It's not about the money — much.
One aircraft manufacturer's liability insurance premium on newly built aircraft has increased significantly in the past few years because of lawsuits claiming defective equipment after accidents. The builder says that FDRs are a distinct possibility to reduce liability from speculative lawsuits and to improve the product. My sense is that it will only be a matter of time before this equipment is standard on some new aircraft.
Cirrus and Alakai Technologies Corporation recently announced that on the SR20 and SR22 it will provide engine and flight data monitoring, recording, and analysis systems. A few of the benefits listed by the company were: "Adherence to aircraft operating manual limitations, flight reconstruction and visualization for accident/incident investigations, enhanced maintenance records, with G-loading, flap overspeed, redline, and other warnings and fuel management reports."
Other positives
There are additional positives to FDRs outside of the wonderful world of law. A number of flight training institutions have specified or installed small digital cameras and FDRs on new aircraft to allow comprehensive reviews of training sessions on what actually occurred in the cockpit or simulator. There's nothing like seeing video or a flight path of a training scenario to guide instructors and students.
"I was right on the localizer."
"Really?"
"Yup — nailed it!"
"Were we in the same cockpit? If the approach had been to the parallel runway it would have been marginally adequate."
"OK, smart guy, let's look at the tapes."
ASF has been evaluating one of the GPS-powered units and, although the novelty still hasn't worn off, it seems to have some practical benefits in teaching.
Olympic athletes, skiers, golfers, and swimmers all use real-time monitoring to improve performance and to settle differences. Even that bastion of sports conservatism, the NFL, is now using instant replays when coaches challenge the ref's eyesight. It's making a difference in the outcome of games and, more important, real-time monitoring doesn't depend upon wishful thinking, a bad angle, or inattention.
Maintenance woes
Claims for maintenance and warranty service may be more fairly adjudicated with data from the devices. For example, suppose a cylinder goes bad and needs to be replaced. If a download of historical engine data shows that the pilot operated the engine well within tolerance, the manufacturer should replace the cylinder. Or, perhaps the data show that the engine was routinely run too hot and the valves are burned — sorry, owner, but you really do need to pay attention to those minor details on leaning.
FDRs rightly emerge as a two-edge sword, however, and in those cases when an aircraft or piece of equipment is shown to be defective, the manufacturer should settle the claim fairly, regardless of whether the defect resulted in an accident, and then quickly resolve the technical problem for the rest of the fleet.
In a statistically valid survey last year AOPA asked pilots what they thought about product liability and its effect upon the GA industry. Ninety-four percent of the respondents felt that frivolous lawsuits drove up the cost of aviation and they had some strong negative feelings regarding plaintiffs, their attorneys, and insurance underwriters. Defining frivolous, of course, depends on your perspective.
However, when asked if they agreed with the statement "A flight data recorder to help determine the cause of accidents would be a welcome addition to the aircraft I fly," 56 percent disagreed with that statement and only 22 percent thought that FDRs would be a good idea. It seems that we'd like to have it both ways.
Despite clear pilot ambivalence on surrendering yet another bit of privacy, the advent of new production aircraft equipped with relatively low-cost FDRs may improve safety and bring some better science to the courtroom, where product-liability and tort-reform advocates have been unsuccessful.
This has a chilling effect on new product development, insurance costs go up for everyone, pilots occasionally get tagged for something that really was a design or construction error, and plaintiffs are free to concoct a variety of hypothetical cases against manufacturers.
In my opinion, not AOPA's, huge amounts of time, money, and energy are spent improperly trying to shift the blame onto undeserving parties on both sides. It's time we had just the facts, ma'am, and made safety decisions based upon them. Instant replay works well in cars, sports, and criminal prosecution. Should we have FDRs and CVRs in our cockpits? What do you think?
Bruce Landsberg is the executive director of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation.
By Bruce Landsberg
Bruce Landsberg has served as executive director of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation since 1992.
Jack Webb, who played the matter-of-fact Los Angeles cop in the long-gone Dragnet television series, routinely used to growl his line, "Just the facts, ma'am" to witnesses, solving some heinous crime quickly within the show's 30-minute running time. Wouldn't it be nice if safety matters could be so simply disassembled?
It's a well-known fact that human behavior changes, usually for the better, when people know they are being watched. There's nothing like a speed trap to help drivers suddenly remember the speed limit. Cameras and a variety of devices are watching us almost everywhere: automatic teller machines, banks, retail stores, gambling establishments, airports, subways, busy intersections, and soon, the cabins of airliners.
The data-recording evolution permeates our lives. Suppose there was a way to get just the facts? As general aviation cockpits go to glass and data are easily produced and recorded, flight data recorders may soon be coming to light GA aircraft. Would it cut down on the buzzing incidents or improper aerobatics if pilots knew that their activities were subject to review in the event of an accident?
Red light cameras have been around for about a decade and they are a topic of debate, especially regarding accident reduction, not revenue production — on that, there is no doubt. The U.S. Department of Transportation studied multiple cities and hundreds of intersections.
The DOT found that the cameras reduce side-impact crashes (T-bones) but increase rear-end crashes as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid getting a ticket. However, those crashes tend to be less serious than the typical T-bone accident, and the net annual savings in injuries is on the order of about $39,000 per intersection. The typical answer is, "More studies are planned."
Flight data recorders (FDRs) and cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) have been around for decades on airliners and larger business jets to determine what went wrong after an accident. They measure flight path, aircraft attitude, flight control positions, altitude, engine output, cockpit and air traffic control conversation, and dozens of other variables. The concept has been taken even further to include the analysis of routine flight data to predict problems before they become accidents.
It's difficult to buy a new car these days that does not have an event data recorder, and this is indicative of how such a recorder might appear in our aircraft. You might check the vehicle owner's manual — that's the one nobody reads. A notice will likely advise you of the presence of the device and explain how it will be used. It tracks, among other things, speed, braking, steering, engine parameters, and seat-belt usage and air-bag status — very similar to an FDR.
On some vehicles there is even a GPS-based location tracker that allows a central location to provide directions or, in the event of an accident, to summon help. Divorce lawyers and parents of teen drivers will love the tracking feature, if they can get the data.
Black box information
The data are used for maintenance diagnostics, accident reconstruction, and in court, settling product liability lawsuits. Several states have passed laws that say the data belong to the owner unless a court orders the data to be made available. Insurance companies are prohibited from speculative snooping as a condition of doing business with them, until after an accident, and then only with the court's blessing.
Since 1990, General Motors has equipped more than 7 million vehicles with monitoring capability. When the AOPA Air Safety Foundation was conducting research on technologically advanced aircraft two years ago we came across the following examples:
Data from a black box caused jurors to question the prosecution's argument that a driver was speeding recklessly before a fatal head-on crash with another vehicle. The driver was found not guilty after his truck's black box showed 60 mph at impact — not above 90 mph, as a witness had claimed.
A police officer won a major settlement for severe injuries he suffered when a hearse struck his squad car. The hearse driver claimed that a medical condition caused him to black out before he hit the police car. But the hearse's black box showed that the driver accelerated to 63 mph, about 20 mph faster than the posted speed limit, seconds before he approached the intersection. He then slammed on the brakes one second before impact. These are hardly the actions of an unconscious driver. The black box's information was an unbiased witness to the crash.
The family of a former pro football player killed in a car accident filed a $30 million civil suit claiming the vehicle's air bag deployed after the car hit a pothole, causing him to hit a tree. Data from the black box showed that the air bag deployed on impact, as designed, and that excessive speed was a factor pre-pothole. The family lost the case.
I've written before about some of the more creative interpretations of pilot-in-command responsibility that often result in large settlements to plaintiffs at the expense of manufacturers.
In the vast majority of cases pilots create the problem, according to the NTSB, but its findings are not admissible in court. That encourages dueling experts and massive expense to revisit the issue. It seems to me that access to unbiased facts would be useful to both sides in getting to the truth, which is, of course, what we're all looking for. It's not about the money — much.
One aircraft manufacturer's liability insurance premium on newly built aircraft has increased significantly in the past few years because of lawsuits claiming defective equipment after accidents. The builder says that FDRs are a distinct possibility to reduce liability from speculative lawsuits and to improve the product. My sense is that it will only be a matter of time before this equipment is standard on some new aircraft.
Cirrus and Alakai Technologies Corporation recently announced that on the SR20 and SR22 it will provide engine and flight data monitoring, recording, and analysis systems. A few of the benefits listed by the company were: "Adherence to aircraft operating manual limitations, flight reconstruction and visualization for accident/incident investigations, enhanced maintenance records, with G-loading, flap overspeed, redline, and other warnings and fuel management reports."
Other positives
There are additional positives to FDRs outside of the wonderful world of law. A number of flight training institutions have specified or installed small digital cameras and FDRs on new aircraft to allow comprehensive reviews of training sessions on what actually occurred in the cockpit or simulator. There's nothing like seeing video or a flight path of a training scenario to guide instructors and students.
"I was right on the localizer."
"Really?"
"Yup — nailed it!"
"Were we in the same cockpit? If the approach had been to the parallel runway it would have been marginally adequate."
"OK, smart guy, let's look at the tapes."
ASF has been evaluating one of the GPS-powered units and, although the novelty still hasn't worn off, it seems to have some practical benefits in teaching.
Olympic athletes, skiers, golfers, and swimmers all use real-time monitoring to improve performance and to settle differences. Even that bastion of sports conservatism, the NFL, is now using instant replays when coaches challenge the ref's eyesight. It's making a difference in the outcome of games and, more important, real-time monitoring doesn't depend upon wishful thinking, a bad angle, or inattention.
Maintenance woes
Claims for maintenance and warranty service may be more fairly adjudicated with data from the devices. For example, suppose a cylinder goes bad and needs to be replaced. If a download of historical engine data shows that the pilot operated the engine well within tolerance, the manufacturer should replace the cylinder. Or, perhaps the data show that the engine was routinely run too hot and the valves are burned — sorry, owner, but you really do need to pay attention to those minor details on leaning.
FDRs rightly emerge as a two-edge sword, however, and in those cases when an aircraft or piece of equipment is shown to be defective, the manufacturer should settle the claim fairly, regardless of whether the defect resulted in an accident, and then quickly resolve the technical problem for the rest of the fleet.
In a statistically valid survey last year AOPA asked pilots what they thought about product liability and its effect upon the GA industry. Ninety-four percent of the respondents felt that frivolous lawsuits drove up the cost of aviation and they had some strong negative feelings regarding plaintiffs, their attorneys, and insurance underwriters. Defining frivolous, of course, depends on your perspective.
However, when asked if they agreed with the statement "A flight data recorder to help determine the cause of accidents would be a welcome addition to the aircraft I fly," 56 percent disagreed with that statement and only 22 percent thought that FDRs would be a good idea. It seems that we'd like to have it both ways.
Despite clear pilot ambivalence on surrendering yet another bit of privacy, the advent of new production aircraft equipped with relatively low-cost FDRs may improve safety and bring some better science to the courtroom, where product-liability and tort-reform advocates have been unsuccessful.
This has a chilling effect on new product development, insurance costs go up for everyone, pilots occasionally get tagged for something that really was a design or construction error, and plaintiffs are free to concoct a variety of hypothetical cases against manufacturers.
In my opinion, not AOPA's, huge amounts of time, money, and energy are spent improperly trying to shift the blame onto undeserving parties on both sides. It's time we had just the facts, ma'am, and made safety decisions based upon them. Instant replay works well in cars, sports, and criminal prosecution. Should we have FDRs and CVRs in our cockpits? What do you think?
Bruce Landsberg is the executive director of the AOPA Air Safety Foundation.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Safer vehicles
by Bob Gillespie
The following post is not a car commercial, although it may look like one. I'm posting it in the interest of road safety, and to give readers a balanced view of the latest happenings in the world of traffic safety.
The structural features on these vehicles help to channel energy away from the passengers in the event of a crash, and is quite innovative. Congratulations to Ford and Volvo for making our roadways safer!
Of course we should all do everything in our power to improve our driving, and to become safe, defensive drivers. Even if you have been driving for years you can still benefit a great deal by taking a defensive driver education program.
2008 FORD TAURUS, MERCURY SABLE earn top safety picks
(WebWire) 5/14/2007 11:37:31 AM Related Topics
• Automotive # 2008 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable earn “Top Safety Pick” ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) for achieving the highest ratings in frontal offset, side and rear impact crash protection.
# Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable are the world’s only large family cars to earn both the IIHS Top Safety Pick rating and the U.S. government’s highest available five-star ratings in all crash test categories.
# Ford and Volvo engineers worked together to create this innovative vehicle structure featuring crush zones so that energy is transferred around the passenger compartment.
# Class-leading affordability and safety combine to make Taurus and Sable two of the best choices for safety-conscious consumers looking for full-size family cars.
DEARBORN, Mich.– The 2008 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable will arrive in showrooms this summer bearing Top Safety Pick ratings by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the government’s highest available five-star ratings in all crash test categories.
The IIHS’ "Top Safety Pick" rating can only be earned by vehicles that achieve the best-available safety performance in frontal, side and rear collisions and offer electronic stability control. In addition to being the only large family cars to merit IIHS’ Top Safety Pick rating, these sedans stand alone for also earning five-star driver and passenger crash test ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
“It’s a true testament to the safety engineering of these vehicles that they achieved top crash test ratings from both IIHS and NHTSA,” said Sue Cischke, senior vice president of Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company. “Ford and Volvo worked together to leverage our technical and intellectual resources to create this outstanding vehicle architecture, and now it’s better than ever. These cars offer it all: safety, power, spaciousness, comfort and great features, all at a great value."
The Insurance Institute also gave both vehicles its highest rear impact rating for offering effective protection against neck injuries, as well as its highest front and side impact ratings for withstanding intrusion into the occupant compartment.
The structure of the Taurus and Sable is engineered with crush zones designed to direct excess energy around the passenger compartment into a high-strength safety cage. An innovative cross-car beam “SPACETM Architecture” under the front seats reinforces the structure between the B-pillars, which helps direct energy away from passengers.
Both vehicles offer an industry first two-row Safety Canopy™ side air bag system that provides additional protection not only in side impact collisions, but also deploys in rollover accidents. Side-impact protection comes from a combination of air bag technology and structural features that help safeguard occupants from intrusion by channeling crash energy away from the passenger compartment.
An advanced air bag controller uses front passenger classification sensing to determine if the seat is occupied, and if so, whether the passenger is a larger or smaller person. Air bag deployment is tailored – or altogether suppressed – to help provide an appropriate level of protection. The lower anchors and tethers for children, or LATCH system, provide mounting points for compatible child seats in the second row.
Both cars are available with AdvanceTrac® electronic stability control and all-wheel drive to provide drivers with a confident ride and smooth handling in all weather conditions. All Ford, Lincoln and Mercury retail cars and trucks will have standard electronic stability control by the end of 2009. ESC currently is standard on all Ford sport utility and crossover vehicles.
Ford Motor Company and its global brands have built more than 4 million vehicles globally with electronic stability control systems. More than one million of those vehicles feature Ford’s industry exclusive AdvanceTrac® with Roll Stability Control, the world’s only system with two gyroscopic sensors to actively measure and help control both yaw and roll movements.
“We believe our electronic stability control systems enhance vehicle safety by helping the driver prevent many accidents from occurring in the first place,” Cischke said. “Making families safer is a key part of our pledge to drive safety innovation.”
AdvanceTrac® with Roll Stability Control is standard equipment on most 2007 model year Ford Motor Company SUVs and crossovers. ESC will be standard on the 2008 model year Taurus X. The 2008 Ford Taurus starts at $23,245 (MSRP); Mercury Sable, starts at $23,540.
The following post is not a car commercial, although it may look like one. I'm posting it in the interest of road safety, and to give readers a balanced view of the latest happenings in the world of traffic safety.
The structural features on these vehicles help to channel energy away from the passengers in the event of a crash, and is quite innovative. Congratulations to Ford and Volvo for making our roadways safer!
Of course we should all do everything in our power to improve our driving, and to become safe, defensive drivers. Even if you have been driving for years you can still benefit a great deal by taking a defensive driver education program.
2008 FORD TAURUS, MERCURY SABLE earn top safety picks
(WebWire) 5/14/2007 11:37:31 AM Related Topics
• Automotive # 2008 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable earn “Top Safety Pick” ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) for achieving the highest ratings in frontal offset, side and rear impact crash protection.
# Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable are the world’s only large family cars to earn both the IIHS Top Safety Pick rating and the U.S. government’s highest available five-star ratings in all crash test categories.
# Ford and Volvo engineers worked together to create this innovative vehicle structure featuring crush zones so that energy is transferred around the passenger compartment.
# Class-leading affordability and safety combine to make Taurus and Sable two of the best choices for safety-conscious consumers looking for full-size family cars.
DEARBORN, Mich.– The 2008 Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable will arrive in showrooms this summer bearing Top Safety Pick ratings by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the government’s highest available five-star ratings in all crash test categories.
The IIHS’ "Top Safety Pick" rating can only be earned by vehicles that achieve the best-available safety performance in frontal, side and rear collisions and offer electronic stability control. In addition to being the only large family cars to merit IIHS’ Top Safety Pick rating, these sedans stand alone for also earning five-star driver and passenger crash test ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
“It’s a true testament to the safety engineering of these vehicles that they achieved top crash test ratings from both IIHS and NHTSA,” said Sue Cischke, senior vice president of Sustainability, Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Company. “Ford and Volvo worked together to leverage our technical and intellectual resources to create this outstanding vehicle architecture, and now it’s better than ever. These cars offer it all: safety, power, spaciousness, comfort and great features, all at a great value."
The Insurance Institute also gave both vehicles its highest rear impact rating for offering effective protection against neck injuries, as well as its highest front and side impact ratings for withstanding intrusion into the occupant compartment.
The structure of the Taurus and Sable is engineered with crush zones designed to direct excess energy around the passenger compartment into a high-strength safety cage. An innovative cross-car beam “SPACETM Architecture” under the front seats reinforces the structure between the B-pillars, which helps direct energy away from passengers.
Both vehicles offer an industry first two-row Safety Canopy™ side air bag system that provides additional protection not only in side impact collisions, but also deploys in rollover accidents. Side-impact protection comes from a combination of air bag technology and structural features that help safeguard occupants from intrusion by channeling crash energy away from the passenger compartment.
An advanced air bag controller uses front passenger classification sensing to determine if the seat is occupied, and if so, whether the passenger is a larger or smaller person. Air bag deployment is tailored – or altogether suppressed – to help provide an appropriate level of protection. The lower anchors and tethers for children, or LATCH system, provide mounting points for compatible child seats in the second row.
Both cars are available with AdvanceTrac® electronic stability control and all-wheel drive to provide drivers with a confident ride and smooth handling in all weather conditions. All Ford, Lincoln and Mercury retail cars and trucks will have standard electronic stability control by the end of 2009. ESC currently is standard on all Ford sport utility and crossover vehicles.
Ford Motor Company and its global brands have built more than 4 million vehicles globally with electronic stability control systems. More than one million of those vehicles feature Ford’s industry exclusive AdvanceTrac® with Roll Stability Control, the world’s only system with two gyroscopic sensors to actively measure and help control both yaw and roll movements.
“We believe our electronic stability control systems enhance vehicle safety by helping the driver prevent many accidents from occurring in the first place,” Cischke said. “Making families safer is a key part of our pledge to drive safety innovation.”
AdvanceTrac® with Roll Stability Control is standard equipment on most 2007 model year Ford Motor Company SUVs and crossovers. ESC will be standard on the 2008 model year Taurus X. The 2008 Ford Taurus starts at $23,245 (MSRP); Mercury Sable, starts at $23,540.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Teen driving restrictions
Guest Opinion: Changing teen driving regulations will save lives
LINDA GORMAN Tucson Citizen
As a society, we have become too complacent about traffic crashes taking the lives of those we love. On Tuesday, however, an important milestone was reached that will go a step toward saving those lives we value so much. On that day, the House voted 50-7 to pass the Teenage Driver Safety Act, HB 2033.
The bill is now being considered by the governor and, if signed into law, would take effect July 1, 2008. Car crashes are the No. 1 cause of death for teens nationwide and in Arizona. Not drugs. Not alcohol. Not violence or suicides. Car crashes. Crash rates for teenage drivers are as many as four times higher than for adult drivers.
This is an issue that affects not only teenagers, but also everyone else on the road. A first-of-its-kind study released last year by AAA reported that 3 out of 4 fatalities involving Arizona teen drivers are the teen driver's passengers, another driver, another driver's passengers, pedestrians or others.
The statistics are alarming: In Arizona from 1995 to 2005, more than 700 people have been killed in crashes involving teen drivers. As tragic as this is, it's even more tragic to know that many of these deaths were preventable. A large and growing body of research supports such restrictions on new teen drivers.
For instance, research has shown that the crash risks for teenage drivers increases exponentially with each additional passenger in the vehicle. With three or more passengers, the crash risk for teenage drivers is about four times greater than when driving alone. In addition, states with nighttime driving restrictions show crash reductions of up to 60 percent during those restricted hours.
Furthermore, states that have adopted intermediate licensing programs for new teen drivers have seen reductions in teen-related incidents by as much as 30 percent. And late last year, AAA released the results of an opinion poll that showed 3 out of 4 Arizona residents want stronger teen driving laws. This is why AAA Arizona led a broad coalition in the goal of strengthening teenage driving laws.
With the enactment of the legislation, Arizona is joining 45 other states that have established intermediate programs for new teen drivers. Under the law, new teen drivers in the first six months of their driver's license will have restricted nighttime driving, limits on teen passengers and more hours of instructional driving before an unrestricted license can be obtained.
The legislation is a balanced approach to traffic safety with the nighttime driving restrictions providing reasonable exemptions for employment, school and religious activities and family emergencies.
Likewise, the passenger limitations do not apply to siblings. The legislation enjoyed the support of three key sponsors, Sens. Barbara Leff, R-Paradise Valley, and Ron Gould , R-Lake Havasu City, and House Majority Whip John McComish, R-Phoenix.
The legislation received bipartisan support with a 21-6 vote in the Senate and 50-7 vote in the House. AAA Arizona wants to thank the legislators, organizations and agencies that worked so tirelessly in support of this bill. About the author: Linda Gorman is the public affairs manager of AAA Arizona
LINDA GORMAN Tucson Citizen
As a society, we have become too complacent about traffic crashes taking the lives of those we love. On Tuesday, however, an important milestone was reached that will go a step toward saving those lives we value so much. On that day, the House voted 50-7 to pass the Teenage Driver Safety Act, HB 2033.
The bill is now being considered by the governor and, if signed into law, would take effect July 1, 2008. Car crashes are the No. 1 cause of death for teens nationwide and in Arizona. Not drugs. Not alcohol. Not violence or suicides. Car crashes. Crash rates for teenage drivers are as many as four times higher than for adult drivers.
This is an issue that affects not only teenagers, but also everyone else on the road. A first-of-its-kind study released last year by AAA reported that 3 out of 4 fatalities involving Arizona teen drivers are the teen driver's passengers, another driver, another driver's passengers, pedestrians or others.
The statistics are alarming: In Arizona from 1995 to 2005, more than 700 people have been killed in crashes involving teen drivers. As tragic as this is, it's even more tragic to know that many of these deaths were preventable. A large and growing body of research supports such restrictions on new teen drivers.
For instance, research has shown that the crash risks for teenage drivers increases exponentially with each additional passenger in the vehicle. With three or more passengers, the crash risk for teenage drivers is about four times greater than when driving alone. In addition, states with nighttime driving restrictions show crash reductions of up to 60 percent during those restricted hours.
Furthermore, states that have adopted intermediate licensing programs for new teen drivers have seen reductions in teen-related incidents by as much as 30 percent. And late last year, AAA released the results of an opinion poll that showed 3 out of 4 Arizona residents want stronger teen driving laws. This is why AAA Arizona led a broad coalition in the goal of strengthening teenage driving laws.
With the enactment of the legislation, Arizona is joining 45 other states that have established intermediate programs for new teen drivers. Under the law, new teen drivers in the first six months of their driver's license will have restricted nighttime driving, limits on teen passengers and more hours of instructional driving before an unrestricted license can be obtained.
The legislation is a balanced approach to traffic safety with the nighttime driving restrictions providing reasonable exemptions for employment, school and religious activities and family emergencies.
Likewise, the passenger limitations do not apply to siblings. The legislation enjoyed the support of three key sponsors, Sens. Barbara Leff, R-Paradise Valley, and Ron Gould , R-Lake Havasu City, and House Majority Whip John McComish, R-Phoenix.
The legislation received bipartisan support with a 21-6 vote in the Senate and 50-7 vote in the House. AAA Arizona wants to thank the legislators, organizations and agencies that worked so tirelessly in support of this bill. About the author: Linda Gorman is the public affairs manager of AAA Arizona
Friday, May 11, 2007
Anti-crash technology
by Bob Gillespie
I think air bags, antilock brakes, and electronic stability control is amazing technology, and anything that can be done to save lives is a wonderful thing. But if you stop and think about it, if everyone was a really good driver, we wouldn't need these things, right?
We wouldn't need car insurance either, or seat belts, or telescoping steering columns, or all the other safety features that modern vehicles have. That is, if we're talking about driver error only. There's a very small percentage of traffic accidents that are caused by things other than driver error: a large animal such as a deer running in front of your vehicle, a tree falling on the road, or someone falling asleep behind the wheel.
Falling asleep behind the wheel happens sometimes because a person has sleep apnea, and may not even know they have it. I'm sure there are other medical conditions that can cause drowsiness, but sleep apnea is the only one I'm familiar with. So if a person doesn't even know they have a medical condition, we can't be too hard on them.
Taking all of the above into consideration then, I think anti-crash technology is a very good thing, and very important. I know I'm a safe, defensive driver, yet I must admit I do like that feeling of knowing there's an airbag and seatbelts there, just in case.
Anticrash Tech Gets Nod from Regulators By Jennifer LeClaire April 6, 2007
According to Barry McCahill, a retired National Highway Traffic Safety Administration official, the ruling to require Electronic Stability Control, or ESC, is arguably the most important regulation the NHTSA has ever issued. The safety benefits of ESC are massive and the ESC rule ushers in a new era where preventing a crash is paramount, he explained.
Crash-prevention technology will come preinstalled on all passenger vehicles sold in the United States by 2012 as part of new government regulations that aim to save thousands of lives each year. Dubbed Electronic Stability Control, or ESC, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator Nicole Nason announced the final rule at the New York International Auto Show on Thursday.
"This technology will save thousands of lives. Like airbags and seat belts, 10 years down the road we will look back at the new ESC technology and wonder how we ever drove a car without it." Peters said in a statement.
Antilock brakes have speed sensors and independent braking capability. ESC adds sensors that continuously monitor how well a vehicle is responding to a driver's steering input.
These sensors can detect when a driver is about to lose control because the vehicle is straying from the intended line of travel -- a problem that usually occurs in high-speed maneuvers or on slippery roads. In these circumstances, ESC brakes individual wheels automatically to keep the vehicle under control.
When a driver makes a sudden emergency maneuver or, for example, enters a curve too quickly, the vehicle might spin out of control. Then ESC's automatic braking is applied and in some cases the throttle is reduced to help keep the vehicle under control.
An Important Regulation
The final rule will require all manufacturers to begin equipping passenger vehicles with ESC starting with model year 2009, and to have the feature available as standard equipment on all new passenger vehicles by the 2012 model year, which rolls out September 2011.
The agency estimates ESC will save between 5,300 and 9,600 lives annually and prevent between 168,000 and 238,000 injuries. The estimated average cost of ESC is approximately $111 per vehicle, if the model already features ABS brakes.
According to Barry McCahill, president of SUV Owners of America and a retired NHTSA official, the ESC ruling is arguably the most important regulation the agency has ever issued. The safety benefits are massive and the rule ushers in a new era where preventing a crash is paramount, he explained.
"Protection after a crash is vitally important but preventing a crash from happening should be the first goal of auto safety efforts," McCahill said. "Seat belts are great safety equipment, but they only work in crashes, so injuries and property damage always occur even when the belt saves your life. With ESC nothing occurs -- no injuries, no damage to the vehicle."
Why Wait Until 2012?
If the regulation can save thousands of lives and save insurance companies thousands of dollars, then why wait? "We think it could and should be implemented much faster," said Russ Rader, a spokesperson for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Indeed, he pointed out that ESC is standard on 40 percent of 2006 passenger vehicle models and optional on another 15 percent. It's standard on every 2006 Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Mercedes, and Porsche. Cadillac, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lexus, Mini, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo offer at least optional ESC on all of their models.
McCahill offered an answer to the question about waiting: He explained that all auto safety regulations have a phase-in schedule so manufacturers can introduce the technology in parallel with the lead times for their product plans. "Lead time for auto platforms usually is around seven years," he said. "So, there is nothing unreasonable about the timeline."
I think air bags, antilock brakes, and electronic stability control is amazing technology, and anything that can be done to save lives is a wonderful thing. But if you stop and think about it, if everyone was a really good driver, we wouldn't need these things, right?
We wouldn't need car insurance either, or seat belts, or telescoping steering columns, or all the other safety features that modern vehicles have. That is, if we're talking about driver error only. There's a very small percentage of traffic accidents that are caused by things other than driver error: a large animal such as a deer running in front of your vehicle, a tree falling on the road, or someone falling asleep behind the wheel.
Falling asleep behind the wheel happens sometimes because a person has sleep apnea, and may not even know they have it. I'm sure there are other medical conditions that can cause drowsiness, but sleep apnea is the only one I'm familiar with. So if a person doesn't even know they have a medical condition, we can't be too hard on them.
Taking all of the above into consideration then, I think anti-crash technology is a very good thing, and very important. I know I'm a safe, defensive driver, yet I must admit I do like that feeling of knowing there's an airbag and seatbelts there, just in case.
Anticrash Tech Gets Nod from Regulators By Jennifer LeClaire April 6, 2007
According to Barry McCahill, a retired National Highway Traffic Safety Administration official, the ruling to require Electronic Stability Control, or ESC, is arguably the most important regulation the NHTSA has ever issued. The safety benefits of ESC are massive and the ESC rule ushers in a new era where preventing a crash is paramount, he explained.
Crash-prevention technology will come preinstalled on all passenger vehicles sold in the United States by 2012 as part of new government regulations that aim to save thousands of lives each year. Dubbed Electronic Stability Control, or ESC, U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator Nicole Nason announced the final rule at the New York International Auto Show on Thursday.
"This technology will save thousands of lives. Like airbags and seat belts, 10 years down the road we will look back at the new ESC technology and wonder how we ever drove a car without it." Peters said in a statement.
Antilock brakes have speed sensors and independent braking capability. ESC adds sensors that continuously monitor how well a vehicle is responding to a driver's steering input.
These sensors can detect when a driver is about to lose control because the vehicle is straying from the intended line of travel -- a problem that usually occurs in high-speed maneuvers or on slippery roads. In these circumstances, ESC brakes individual wheels automatically to keep the vehicle under control.
When a driver makes a sudden emergency maneuver or, for example, enters a curve too quickly, the vehicle might spin out of control. Then ESC's automatic braking is applied and in some cases the throttle is reduced to help keep the vehicle under control.
An Important Regulation
The final rule will require all manufacturers to begin equipping passenger vehicles with ESC starting with model year 2009, and to have the feature available as standard equipment on all new passenger vehicles by the 2012 model year, which rolls out September 2011.
The agency estimates ESC will save between 5,300 and 9,600 lives annually and prevent between 168,000 and 238,000 injuries. The estimated average cost of ESC is approximately $111 per vehicle, if the model already features ABS brakes.
According to Barry McCahill, president of SUV Owners of America and a retired NHTSA official, the ESC ruling is arguably the most important regulation the agency has ever issued. The safety benefits are massive and the rule ushers in a new era where preventing a crash is paramount, he explained.
"Protection after a crash is vitally important but preventing a crash from happening should be the first goal of auto safety efforts," McCahill said. "Seat belts are great safety equipment, but they only work in crashes, so injuries and property damage always occur even when the belt saves your life. With ESC nothing occurs -- no injuries, no damage to the vehicle."
Why Wait Until 2012?
If the regulation can save thousands of lives and save insurance companies thousands of dollars, then why wait? "We think it could and should be implemented much faster," said Russ Rader, a spokesperson for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Indeed, he pointed out that ESC is standard on 40 percent of 2006 passenger vehicle models and optional on another 15 percent. It's standard on every 2006 Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Mercedes, and Porsche. Cadillac, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lexus, Mini, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo offer at least optional ESC on all of their models.
McCahill offered an answer to the question about waiting: He explained that all auto safety regulations have a phase-in schedule so manufacturers can introduce the technology in parallel with the lead times for their product plans. "Lead time for auto platforms usually is around seven years," he said. "So, there is nothing unreasonable about the timeline."
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Tougher auto safety ratings
by Bob Gillespie
A safety score for each new vehicle seems like a very good idea to me. As it stands now it must be quite confusing for the purchaser of a new vehicle to compare safety features.
In the following article mention is made of an "aggresivity standard." It seems that buyers of heavier vehicles such as suv's don't always consider the effect that their vehicle has on the other (lighter) vehicle if they're involved in a collision. Then there are some people who buy an suv for the very reason that they will come out ahead in a crash.
Well, if the following proposal goes through, the people who aren't aware of this big difference between light cars and suv's will be made aware of it, and perhaps use their conscience as their guide.
Let me hasten to add though that there are many businesses, and large families, etc. that really need an suv, and aren't buying one just so they can crush smaller and lighter vehicles in the event of a collision.
By Joe BentonConsumerAffairs.Com
The auto industry seems willing to go along with a proposal to blend a number of crash test ratings into a consolidated safety score for each new vehicle, as long as the score does not rate new technologies but critics say the proposal doesn't go far enough.
The proposal is part of an effort at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide consumers with a number they can use to compare the safety aspects of different vehicles.
The program, which was introduced while Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook was head of NHTSA, has fallen behind similar programs in other countries, Claybrook said in testimony before NHTSA.
When consumers purchase a vehicle, they want to know how it performs in various types of tests, not just the three now included in the NCAP program -- front, side and rollover causation, she said. The existing program does not include a dynamic rollover crash test to determine a vehicle's safety during a rollover crash.
Claybrook's testimony indicated that a rollover crash protection NCAP test is of great importance to consumers because rollover crashes represent more than 20 percent of highway fatalities. The number of rollover crashes has increased dramatically over the past several years, and NHTSA's response to the rollover problem has been ineffective.
The 30 year-old New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is widely known for the five-star crash ratings that appear prominently in car and truck advertising.
Critics of the federal five-star safety testing program charge that the five stars are obtained by so many vehicles in each group that they are virtually meaningless because they fail to differentiate between the safest vehicles and those that are less safe.
Claybrook also urged the agency to include in the updated NCAP an "aggressivity standard" that would provide consumers with information about the risks their vehicles pose to others on the roads and show the consequences of crashes between lighter and heavier vehicles.
"When a consumer chooses a vehicle, she is primarily concerned with the safety of an occupant in that vehicle but often does not consider the safety to occupants of other vehicles," Claybrook said. "Occupants of vehicles are twice as likely to be injured or killed in side-impact crashes with SUVs as with other cars."
Claybrook also offered suggestions for improving NCAP by rating child safety restraints, creating a pedestrian rating, rating vehicle performance in rear-impact crashes and adding an offset frontal crash test rating.
The new safety program could also provide for tougher government tests that produce fewer five-star vehicles while showing how well they protect dummies in crashes.
Currently vehicles receive grades for the driver and passenger in a front impact, for the driver and rear passenger in a side impact and for rollover danger.
Combining the test and rating systems will not be an easy task however.
The automakers agree that a combined safety score for existing crash tests which measure how well occupants are protected from injury. They insist that new technologies like such as electronic stability control designed to avoid a crash be kept separate however.
NHTSA is also considering rating vehicles for how well they protect children in crashes as well using female dummies in passenger seats because women are the ones most often injured in those locations.
One proposal certain to be controversial would allow automakers to conduct the crash tests themselves with only with periodic checks by NHTSA.
A safety score for each new vehicle seems like a very good idea to me. As it stands now it must be quite confusing for the purchaser of a new vehicle to compare safety features.
In the following article mention is made of an "aggresivity standard." It seems that buyers of heavier vehicles such as suv's don't always consider the effect that their vehicle has on the other (lighter) vehicle if they're involved in a collision. Then there are some people who buy an suv for the very reason that they will come out ahead in a crash.
Well, if the following proposal goes through, the people who aren't aware of this big difference between light cars and suv's will be made aware of it, and perhaps use their conscience as their guide.
Let me hasten to add though that there are many businesses, and large families, etc. that really need an suv, and aren't buying one just so they can crush smaller and lighter vehicles in the event of a collision.
By Joe BentonConsumerAffairs.Com
The auto industry seems willing to go along with a proposal to blend a number of crash test ratings into a consolidated safety score for each new vehicle, as long as the score does not rate new technologies but critics say the proposal doesn't go far enough.
The proposal is part of an effort at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide consumers with a number they can use to compare the safety aspects of different vehicles.
The program, which was introduced while Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook was head of NHTSA, has fallen behind similar programs in other countries, Claybrook said in testimony before NHTSA.
When consumers purchase a vehicle, they want to know how it performs in various types of tests, not just the three now included in the NCAP program -- front, side and rollover causation, she said. The existing program does not include a dynamic rollover crash test to determine a vehicle's safety during a rollover crash.
Claybrook's testimony indicated that a rollover crash protection NCAP test is of great importance to consumers because rollover crashes represent more than 20 percent of highway fatalities. The number of rollover crashes has increased dramatically over the past several years, and NHTSA's response to the rollover problem has been ineffective.
The 30 year-old New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) is widely known for the five-star crash ratings that appear prominently in car and truck advertising.
Critics of the federal five-star safety testing program charge that the five stars are obtained by so many vehicles in each group that they are virtually meaningless because they fail to differentiate between the safest vehicles and those that are less safe.
Claybrook also urged the agency to include in the updated NCAP an "aggressivity standard" that would provide consumers with information about the risks their vehicles pose to others on the roads and show the consequences of crashes between lighter and heavier vehicles.
"When a consumer chooses a vehicle, she is primarily concerned with the safety of an occupant in that vehicle but often does not consider the safety to occupants of other vehicles," Claybrook said. "Occupants of vehicles are twice as likely to be injured or killed in side-impact crashes with SUVs as with other cars."
Claybrook also offered suggestions for improving NCAP by rating child safety restraints, creating a pedestrian rating, rating vehicle performance in rear-impact crashes and adding an offset frontal crash test rating.
The new safety program could also provide for tougher government tests that produce fewer five-star vehicles while showing how well they protect dummies in crashes.
Currently vehicles receive grades for the driver and passenger in a front impact, for the driver and rear passenger in a side impact and for rollover danger.
Combining the test and rating systems will not be an easy task however.
The automakers agree that a combined safety score for existing crash tests which measure how well occupants are protected from injury. They insist that new technologies like such as electronic stability control designed to avoid a crash be kept separate however.
NHTSA is also considering rating vehicles for how well they protect children in crashes as well using female dummies in passenger seats because women are the ones most often injured in those locations.
One proposal certain to be controversial would allow automakers to conduct the crash tests themselves with only with periodic checks by NHTSA.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Are you a typical driver?
by Bob Gillespie
Apparently, most everybody thinks of themselves as a pretty good driver - have you ever met anyone who said they were a poor driver? I have, but only once in my life. Now comes the obvious question: how come there are so many vehicle collisions if just about everyone is a "pretty good driver?"
I'm assuming most people agree with me that our roadways are dangerous places, with very high collsion rates. Over 40,00 people are killed on American roads every year, and more than 1 million world wide.
Notice I always use the word 'collision' rather than 'accident.' When someone says they were involved in a car accident, the implication is that some outside force is at work, and they are not really responsible for what happened.
The poor drivers can't be involved in all those collisions, there are too many collisions, and the really good drivers aren't involved in all those collisions. So that leaves the "average" driver or "typical" driver.
So, if we agree that the poor drivers and the average drivers are involved in almost all those collisions, then that means the average driver is not doing too well, considering traffic safety experts generally agree that most collisions could have been prevented. Like about 95% of them.
I haven't mentioned new drivers with one or two years driving experience, or the very elderly. It's true that both of these groups have a disproportionately high collision rate, but their numbers are small compared to the general population.
Now, back to the "typical" driver. I'm trying very hard to phrase this so as not to offend anyone. Well, here goes... the typical, or average, driver gets sloppy over a period of time. Maybe they never learned good defensive driving techniques, or choose to disregard them, or have just forgotten. Just stop and think for a moment: could this be you?
The typical driver doesn't drive strategically or defensively, and is usually dependent on the driver ahead; whatever that driver does, that's what they will do. The average driver often drives too fast for conditions, follows too closely, doesn't spot problems or hazards soon enough, lacks really good seeing habits, etc.
Click on the link if you would like information on an excellent defensive driver education program that is a downloadable ebook, and very inexpensive. If it keeps you out of one collision, it's worth it.
Apparently, most everybody thinks of themselves as a pretty good driver - have you ever met anyone who said they were a poor driver? I have, but only once in my life. Now comes the obvious question: how come there are so many vehicle collisions if just about everyone is a "pretty good driver?"
I'm assuming most people agree with me that our roadways are dangerous places, with very high collsion rates. Over 40,00 people are killed on American roads every year, and more than 1 million world wide.
Notice I always use the word 'collision' rather than 'accident.' When someone says they were involved in a car accident, the implication is that some outside force is at work, and they are not really responsible for what happened.
The poor drivers can't be involved in all those collisions, there are too many collisions, and the really good drivers aren't involved in all those collisions. So that leaves the "average" driver or "typical" driver.
So, if we agree that the poor drivers and the average drivers are involved in almost all those collisions, then that means the average driver is not doing too well, considering traffic safety experts generally agree that most collisions could have been prevented. Like about 95% of them.
I haven't mentioned new drivers with one or two years driving experience, or the very elderly. It's true that both of these groups have a disproportionately high collision rate, but their numbers are small compared to the general population.
Now, back to the "typical" driver. I'm trying very hard to phrase this so as not to offend anyone. Well, here goes... the typical, or average, driver gets sloppy over a period of time. Maybe they never learned good defensive driving techniques, or choose to disregard them, or have just forgotten. Just stop and think for a moment: could this be you?
The typical driver doesn't drive strategically or defensively, and is usually dependent on the driver ahead; whatever that driver does, that's what they will do. The average driver often drives too fast for conditions, follows too closely, doesn't spot problems or hazards soon enough, lacks really good seeing habits, etc.
Click on the link if you would like information on an excellent defensive driver education program that is a downloadable ebook, and very inexpensive. If it keeps you out of one collision, it's worth it.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Electronic stability control
A campaign is under way to fit electronic stability control to all new vehicles, but will buyers of small cars be willing to pay?
Ray Hutton
MERCEDES, which has always taken pride in the safety of its vehicles, had a nasty surprise when the A-class, its first small car, rolled over while being evaluated by journalists.
That was 10 years ago and its failure in the “elk test” avoidance manoeuvre caused the A-class to be withdrawn from sale and sent back to the Mercedes boffins for rectification. Their most important modification was to fit a device called ESP (electronic stability program).
ESP was developed by Mercedes in conjunction with Bosch, the world’s largest supplier of automotive technology. It had appeared only two years before but, as a £1,500 extra, had been regarded as too expensive to be fitted to any but its most prestigious cars.
This device has been heralded as potentially the best car-safety feature since the seat belt. It can sense an impending loss of control before the driver even realises it and automatically make split-second corrections.
ESP is a computer system that uses a yaw sensor like those of guided missiles, and a steering sensor working with the car’s antilock braking (ABS) and traction-control systems to reduce engine power and juggle the brakes on individual wheels to bring a skidding car back to the driver’s intended path. It is especially valuable in treacherous conditions, like black ice – and it compensated for the A-class’s violent reaction in the elk test.
Long-serving Bosch engineers remember: “The A-class was the big breakthrough in the understanding and acceptance of ESP.”
Today, 42% of new cars sold in Europe have electronic stability control. It may not be called ESP or be made by Bosch, although its design and operation will owe something to the original. There are some 20 different acronyms for such devices, among them DSC, VSC, VDC, PCM.
Therein lies the first problem for a high-powered group that will, on Tuesday at an event in Rome, launch a campaign to persuade buyers to specify electronic stability control for their new cars.
A pressure group called eSafety Aware, which has as its patron Max Mosley, president of the FIA (Fédération Internation-ale de l’Automobile), the rule-maker for Formula One racing, proposes that the motor industry and safety organisations stand-ardise and adopt the abbreviation ESC.
The Choose ESC campaign is seen as the first step towards making electronic stability control compulsory for all new cars.
The evidence is compelling. Mercedes, which has fitted ESP to all its cars since 1999, made a before-and-after comparison of accidents and concluded that ESP has reduced accidents where the driver loses control by 42%. Toyota estimates that electronic stability control prevents 50% of single-vehicle crashes.
A recent study by the Institute for Transport Economics at the University of Cologne calculated that, if it were made mandatory for new cars in the EU from next year, 1,800 road deaths and more than €4.4 billion (£3 billion) in accident costs would be saved over the first four years.
In America, the National Highways Safety and Traffic Administration (NHSTA) has announced that ESC will be mandatory for all new cars, 4x4s and light trucks sold from 2012. At the Rome conference, NHSTA administrator Nicole Nason will say that American research has shown that electronic stability control reduces single-vehicle accidents in 4x4s by 59% and could halve America’s annual 10,000 death toll from roll-over accidents.
The NHSTA has proposed that its regulation on electronic stability control be adopted internationally. The European commissioner for enterprise and industry, Günther Verheugen, is in favour of a similar measure within the EU, covering cars, lorries, buses and coaches.
The German prestige-car makers are also in favour – Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Porsche already fit electronic stability controls to all their models. But the makers of small cars, mainly in France and Italy, are concerned about the costs involved at a time when markets might not standa significant price rise.
The cost of electronic stability control has fallen with time and increased volume. In 1998, the A-class crisis ESP fitment cost Mercedes £500 per car; now the price to the manufacturer – in addition to ABS, which is already standard on European cars – is about £80.
The trend is to include electronic stability control as standard on cars and vans. The new Ford Mondeo, which goes on sale this month, has it on all versions. But where it is still optional – as on most smaller and cheaper cars – the average extra retail price is £300 and not many British buyers go for it. The current fitment rate for new cars in the UK is at the European average of 42% but in Sweden the figure is 90%.
Active safety measures, designed to avoid accidents, are not easy to sell. It took ABS antilock braking 20 years to achieve the market penetration that electronic stability control has today. Images of crumpled metal and air bags going off in crash tests have made it easier to convince car buyers of the value of passive safety – the protection of car occupants in an accident.
The Euro NCAP crash-test programme, which gives star ratings for vehicle protection, has proved influential with consumers, and the same team is now working on tests that would validate the electronic stability controls. These involve negotiatinga twisting course on a test track at programmed speeds using a robot driver who would be, and be seen to be, more consistent than a fallible, human test driver.
Rule makers at the European Commission will need such a test if electronic stability controls are to be made compulsory, as vehicle-safety regulations must set performance standards rather than dictate technology.
The original ESP has undergone further developments and refinements for the most technically advanced cars. These include integration with radar-based collision-avoidance systems and automatic stop-go driving in city traffic. But the basic function of keeping the car on the driver’s intended course in an emergency is the thing that will bring the improvement in accident statistics and justify making it compulsory.
The proponents of electronic stability control hope that it can be a standard feature on all new cars by 2012.
Mosley, who led the Euro NCAP crash-test programme, welcomes the Choose ESC campaign as a step in that direction.
“There is no doubt that ESC could contribute significantly to the European Union’s goal of halving road-traffic fatalities by 2010. But to achieve this, much more needs to be done to inform consumers about why they should choose it when buying a new car,” he said.
Whether car and component manufacturers will cooperate by agreeing to adopt ESC as a common name for this life-saving device remains to be seen. BMW, for one, is none too keen on the implication that its DSC is the same as rival Mercedes’s ESP. And Bosch, the firm that started it all, says it has no plans to change from ESP to ESC.
Ray Hutton
MERCEDES, which has always taken pride in the safety of its vehicles, had a nasty surprise when the A-class, its first small car, rolled over while being evaluated by journalists.
That was 10 years ago and its failure in the “elk test” avoidance manoeuvre caused the A-class to be withdrawn from sale and sent back to the Mercedes boffins for rectification. Their most important modification was to fit a device called ESP (electronic stability program).
ESP was developed by Mercedes in conjunction with Bosch, the world’s largest supplier of automotive technology. It had appeared only two years before but, as a £1,500 extra, had been regarded as too expensive to be fitted to any but its most prestigious cars.
This device has been heralded as potentially the best car-safety feature since the seat belt. It can sense an impending loss of control before the driver even realises it and automatically make split-second corrections.
ESP is a computer system that uses a yaw sensor like those of guided missiles, and a steering sensor working with the car’s antilock braking (ABS) and traction-control systems to reduce engine power and juggle the brakes on individual wheels to bring a skidding car back to the driver’s intended path. It is especially valuable in treacherous conditions, like black ice – and it compensated for the A-class’s violent reaction in the elk test.
Long-serving Bosch engineers remember: “The A-class was the big breakthrough in the understanding and acceptance of ESP.”
Today, 42% of new cars sold in Europe have electronic stability control. It may not be called ESP or be made by Bosch, although its design and operation will owe something to the original. There are some 20 different acronyms for such devices, among them DSC, VSC, VDC, PCM.
Therein lies the first problem for a high-powered group that will, on Tuesday at an event in Rome, launch a campaign to persuade buyers to specify electronic stability control for their new cars.
A pressure group called eSafety Aware, which has as its patron Max Mosley, president of the FIA (Fédération Internation-ale de l’Automobile), the rule-maker for Formula One racing, proposes that the motor industry and safety organisations stand-ardise and adopt the abbreviation ESC.
The Choose ESC campaign is seen as the first step towards making electronic stability control compulsory for all new cars.
The evidence is compelling. Mercedes, which has fitted ESP to all its cars since 1999, made a before-and-after comparison of accidents and concluded that ESP has reduced accidents where the driver loses control by 42%. Toyota estimates that electronic stability control prevents 50% of single-vehicle crashes.
A recent study by the Institute for Transport Economics at the University of Cologne calculated that, if it were made mandatory for new cars in the EU from next year, 1,800 road deaths and more than €4.4 billion (£3 billion) in accident costs would be saved over the first four years.
In America, the National Highways Safety and Traffic Administration (NHSTA) has announced that ESC will be mandatory for all new cars, 4x4s and light trucks sold from 2012. At the Rome conference, NHSTA administrator Nicole Nason will say that American research has shown that electronic stability control reduces single-vehicle accidents in 4x4s by 59% and could halve America’s annual 10,000 death toll from roll-over accidents.
The NHSTA has proposed that its regulation on electronic stability control be adopted internationally. The European commissioner for enterprise and industry, Günther Verheugen, is in favour of a similar measure within the EU, covering cars, lorries, buses and coaches.
The German prestige-car makers are also in favour – Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Porsche already fit electronic stability controls to all their models. But the makers of small cars, mainly in France and Italy, are concerned about the costs involved at a time when markets might not standa significant price rise.
The cost of electronic stability control has fallen with time and increased volume. In 1998, the A-class crisis ESP fitment cost Mercedes £500 per car; now the price to the manufacturer – in addition to ABS, which is already standard on European cars – is about £80.
The trend is to include electronic stability control as standard on cars and vans. The new Ford Mondeo, which goes on sale this month, has it on all versions. But where it is still optional – as on most smaller and cheaper cars – the average extra retail price is £300 and not many British buyers go for it. The current fitment rate for new cars in the UK is at the European average of 42% but in Sweden the figure is 90%.
Active safety measures, designed to avoid accidents, are not easy to sell. It took ABS antilock braking 20 years to achieve the market penetration that electronic stability control has today. Images of crumpled metal and air bags going off in crash tests have made it easier to convince car buyers of the value of passive safety – the protection of car occupants in an accident.
The Euro NCAP crash-test programme, which gives star ratings for vehicle protection, has proved influential with consumers, and the same team is now working on tests that would validate the electronic stability controls. These involve negotiatinga twisting course on a test track at programmed speeds using a robot driver who would be, and be seen to be, more consistent than a fallible, human test driver.
Rule makers at the European Commission will need such a test if electronic stability controls are to be made compulsory, as vehicle-safety regulations must set performance standards rather than dictate technology.
The original ESP has undergone further developments and refinements for the most technically advanced cars. These include integration with radar-based collision-avoidance systems and automatic stop-go driving in city traffic. But the basic function of keeping the car on the driver’s intended course in an emergency is the thing that will bring the improvement in accident statistics and justify making it compulsory.
The proponents of electronic stability control hope that it can be a standard feature on all new cars by 2012.
Mosley, who led the Euro NCAP crash-test programme, welcomes the Choose ESC campaign as a step in that direction.
“There is no doubt that ESC could contribute significantly to the European Union’s goal of halving road-traffic fatalities by 2010. But to achieve this, much more needs to be done to inform consumers about why they should choose it when buying a new car,” he said.
Whether car and component manufacturers will cooperate by agreeing to adopt ESC as a common name for this life-saving device remains to be seen. BMW, for one, is none too keen on the implication that its DSC is the same as rival Mercedes’s ESP. And Bosch, the firm that started it all, says it has no plans to change from ESP to ESC.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Kids drive like their parents
by Bob Gillespie
Aha! Just as I suspected. I think that most everyone picks up bad driving habits over the years, and tend to get sloppy. A person may not even be aware that they're sometimes breaking the rules of the road or driving in an unsafe manner.
Of course if their teen is in the car watching, it does set a bad example. I think just about everyone can benefit from a really good defensive driver course. You can learn from the comfort of your home by purchasing a very inexpensive ebook, then the parent and teen will both benefit.
If you buy an ebook, make sure it's written by someone who has been an in-car instructor for many years, and really knows what he's talking about. Also, make sure that it comes with a good, solid guarantee in case it doesn't live up to everything that was promised.
I don't think you will have any trouble returning an ebook purchased from the internet. An internet marketer who doesn't stand behind his product 100% probably won't be in business for very long.
Kids Drive Like Their Parents BURNABY, BC, March 19 /CNW/ - The BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation has released the results of their Young Drivers Study which indicate that kidsdrive like their parents.
The study, commissioned by the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation and managed by the Applied Research and Evaluation Services Department of the University of British Columbia (UBC A.R.E.S.), asked drivers between the ages of 19 and 24 to answer questions about their driving history, driving style, and driving behaviours, as well as their perceptions of the driving history, style and behaviours of their parents, and identify primary influences when it came to their personal driving practices.
The key result from the study is the influence of parental role modeling.Young Drivers sited their parents, especially fathers, as the primary influence when it came to their own driving. "Parents should understand that their driving practices are likely shaping the driving practices of their children and should ensure that they are good role models behind the wheel," stated Allan Lamb, Executive Director of the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation."
In some cases family influence overpowered driver training courses in young driver behaviour," added Lamb. The BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation has also conducted focus groups with parents of young drivers. When parents were presented with the knowledge that their driving attitude and behaviour significantly influenced their children's driving, they agreed that they needed to be more aware of their own driving practices and were interested in tools that they could use to help their children develop safe driving practices.
Driving affects the entire family according to David Dunne, Director of Provincial Programs for the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, which is developing a program to provide parents and their children with the tools to become safer drivers. "The program will provide parents with resources to help them constructively parent their children through the early stages of their driving career - which can be a very scary time," says Dunne.
The BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation is running two Young Driver Workshop pilot programs in the Lower Mainland and expects to have a formal workshop program in place by the fall. In British Columbia in 2004, persons between the ages of 16 and 25 comprised about 14% of the driving population, according to ICBC.
According to the most recent data from police attended crashes around the province, individuals in this age group were involved in crashes that resulted in approximately 42% of those injured and approximately 34% of those killed.Further details from the Young Drivers Study are available on the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation's website at http://www.teendrivers.ca/.
For further information: Lennea Durant, Media Relations, BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, (604) 875-1182, lenneadurant@shaw.ca; David Dunne, Director, Provincial Programs, BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, (604) 297-2152, david.dunne@bcaa.com
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Too old to drive?
by Bob Gillespie
As usual, when I submit a post I like to put in my two cents worth. I think the article below can be a great help to older drivers, and to the family members of older drivers. (I will have to be careful what I say here because I'm an older driver.)
Actually, I'm in my sixties - that's pretty old, right? But everything is relative; a person in their eighties might think of me as young. Now that makes me feel good.
Anyway, I do agree with the post below, in that the older one gets, the more one should keep tabs on their vision, reaction time, etc. Speaking for myself, my vision is not as good, but I fixed that problem with an excellent pair of eye glasses. I'm not as flexible as I used to be when turning around, so I use my three mirrors quite a bit now when reversing. Well, truck drivers have to rely totally on their mirrors when they back up, so it's not such a bad thing.
I should hasten to add that when I'm instructing younger people, I tell them to really crank themselves around so they can see everything.
However, no matter what a persons age, they can benefit greatly with a really good defensive driving education program. For example, if a person has taken lessons from a driving school but has not taken any classroom lessons, an ebook on defensive driving would be valuable. The reason is that in-car lessons don't leave enough time to learn all about safe, defensive driving.
There's just too much information to cover.
(NAPSI)-Driving has long been a family affair. Be it family road trips, the infamous "backseat driver" in the family or teaching a teen how to drive, driving is a hot topic for families. What's more, families also play an important role in encouraging safe driving practices among their older loved ones. "Families nationwide are dealing with the sensitive issue of older driver safety," says Elinor Ginzler, AARP's Director of Livable Communities and an authority on older driver safety.
"AARP encourages families to talk openly with loved ones about safe driving practices. Older drivers trust the advice of family-be it spouse or children-when it comes to their well-being."Today, about one in seven drivers is age 65 or older.
This figure is expected to rise significantly in the years ahead, increasing the need for safe driving practices. By the time the last baby boomers turn 65, in 2029, about one in four drivers will be age 65 or older.
Older drivers face different challenges on the road than do their younger counterparts. Age-related changes-such as impaired vision and slower reflexes and response time-can affect their driving skills. Older drivers may be able to maintain safe driving skills as well as extend their driving years by:
• Conducting regular self-assessment of driving capacities
• Attending a driver-refresher course
• Recognizing and addressing vision changes
• Maintaining quick reflexes and flexibility by staying physically active
• Therapeutic interventions from certified driving rehabilitation specialists.
However, if older drivers continue to experience a decline in driving abilities, it might be time for them to consider limiting driving or hanging up the keys altogether. If you or a loved one experiences any of the following signs, it might be time to talk about safe driving practices and transportation alternatives:
• Frequent "close calls" (i.e., near accidents)
• Dents or scrapes on the car or on fences, mailboxes, garage doors, curbs, etc.
• Trouble judging gaps in traffic at intersections and on highway entrance/exit ramps
• Getting lost
• Difficulty seeing the sides of the road when looking straight ahead
• Slower response time; trouble moving foot from gas to brake pedal or confusing the two pedals
• Getting distracted easily or having trouble concentrating
• Difficulty turning around to check over the shoulder while backing up or changing lanes
• Frequent traffic tickets or "warnings" by traffic or law enforcement officers in the last year or two.
"Although most older drivers believe that they should be the one to make the final decision about driving, they also agree that their physician should advise them," says Dr. Carl Soderstrom, Director of the Driver Safety Research Program for the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. "By providing evaluations about medical fitness to drive, clinicians can help their patients make informed and wise decisions, or become familiar with mobility alternatives in their community."
If you are concerned about a loved one's driving, start a conversation about driving that's based on your observations. It's also important that they understand you're broaching the topic out of sincere concern for their well-being. In recommending driving solutions, offer various options depending on the degree of impairment.
For example, suggest that they limit driving to certain times of the day or familiar areas. Additionally, encourage them to gradually begin using alternative transportation, including rides from family and friends, taxis or public transportation.
To help drivers refresh their skills, AARP offers a classroom course, as well as an online driver's safety course, that teaches safe driving strategies to address age-related changes that affect one's driving ability. To learn more about older driver safety, visit www.aarp.org/ families/driver_safety/ or call (888) 227-7669 toll free.
As usual, when I submit a post I like to put in my two cents worth. I think the article below can be a great help to older drivers, and to the family members of older drivers. (I will have to be careful what I say here because I'm an older driver.)
Actually, I'm in my sixties - that's pretty old, right? But everything is relative; a person in their eighties might think of me as young. Now that makes me feel good.
Anyway, I do agree with the post below, in that the older one gets, the more one should keep tabs on their vision, reaction time, etc. Speaking for myself, my vision is not as good, but I fixed that problem with an excellent pair of eye glasses. I'm not as flexible as I used to be when turning around, so I use my three mirrors quite a bit now when reversing. Well, truck drivers have to rely totally on their mirrors when they back up, so it's not such a bad thing.
I should hasten to add that when I'm instructing younger people, I tell them to really crank themselves around so they can see everything.
However, no matter what a persons age, they can benefit greatly with a really good defensive driving education program. For example, if a person has taken lessons from a driving school but has not taken any classroom lessons, an ebook on defensive driving would be valuable. The reason is that in-car lessons don't leave enough time to learn all about safe, defensive driving.
There's just too much information to cover.
(NAPSI)-Driving has long been a family affair. Be it family road trips, the infamous "backseat driver" in the family or teaching a teen how to drive, driving is a hot topic for families. What's more, families also play an important role in encouraging safe driving practices among their older loved ones. "Families nationwide are dealing with the sensitive issue of older driver safety," says Elinor Ginzler, AARP's Director of Livable Communities and an authority on older driver safety.
"AARP encourages families to talk openly with loved ones about safe driving practices. Older drivers trust the advice of family-be it spouse or children-when it comes to their well-being."Today, about one in seven drivers is age 65 or older.
This figure is expected to rise significantly in the years ahead, increasing the need for safe driving practices. By the time the last baby boomers turn 65, in 2029, about one in four drivers will be age 65 or older.
Older drivers face different challenges on the road than do their younger counterparts. Age-related changes-such as impaired vision and slower reflexes and response time-can affect their driving skills. Older drivers may be able to maintain safe driving skills as well as extend their driving years by:
• Conducting regular self-assessment of driving capacities
• Attending a driver-refresher course
• Recognizing and addressing vision changes
• Maintaining quick reflexes and flexibility by staying physically active
• Therapeutic interventions from certified driving rehabilitation specialists.
However, if older drivers continue to experience a decline in driving abilities, it might be time for them to consider limiting driving or hanging up the keys altogether. If you or a loved one experiences any of the following signs, it might be time to talk about safe driving practices and transportation alternatives:
• Frequent "close calls" (i.e., near accidents)
• Dents or scrapes on the car or on fences, mailboxes, garage doors, curbs, etc.
• Trouble judging gaps in traffic at intersections and on highway entrance/exit ramps
• Getting lost
• Difficulty seeing the sides of the road when looking straight ahead
• Slower response time; trouble moving foot from gas to brake pedal or confusing the two pedals
• Getting distracted easily or having trouble concentrating
• Difficulty turning around to check over the shoulder while backing up or changing lanes
• Frequent traffic tickets or "warnings" by traffic or law enforcement officers in the last year or two.
"Although most older drivers believe that they should be the one to make the final decision about driving, they also agree that their physician should advise them," says Dr. Carl Soderstrom, Director of the Driver Safety Research Program for the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. "By providing evaluations about medical fitness to drive, clinicians can help their patients make informed and wise decisions, or become familiar with mobility alternatives in their community."
If you are concerned about a loved one's driving, start a conversation about driving that's based on your observations. It's also important that they understand you're broaching the topic out of sincere concern for their well-being. In recommending driving solutions, offer various options depending on the degree of impairment.
For example, suggest that they limit driving to certain times of the day or familiar areas. Additionally, encourage them to gradually begin using alternative transportation, including rides from family and friends, taxis or public transportation.
To help drivers refresh their skills, AARP offers a classroom course, as well as an online driver's safety course, that teaches safe driving strategies to address age-related changes that affect one's driving ability. To learn more about older driver safety, visit www.aarp.org/ families/driver_safety/ or call (888) 227-7669 toll free.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Driver Assistance Technology
by Bob Gillespie
Well, it sure is good to see that vehicle manufacturers are making safer vehicles all the time. The article below is quite an eye-opener.
I drive an older vehicle, and when I start adding up all the safety features that are now available, I'm astounded by what's out there: air bags, anti-lock brakes, (two of my favorites) stability control, and satellite navigation. I think the last two are excellent also.
Guess I should break down and purchase a newer vehicle. Even though I rely heavily on my defensive driving skills and a lifetime of collision-free driving, I still wouldn't mind having them in my vehicle. I have written an article on anti-lock brakes which you can read by clicking on this link: http://www.ultimate-driver-training.com/antilock_brakes.html
RESEARCH ANALYSIS: Driver assistance technologies coming despite consumer apathy
28 February 2007 Source: just-auto.com editorial team
Sensors identify the environment of the vehicle and enable early detection of dangerous traffic situations.
view image
Research has shown that driver error is one of the most common causes of traffic accidents. Driver_assistance technologies can therefore provide a vital helping hand in times of trouble.
But surveys show that many drivers assign low priority to 'out of sight' safety items such as anti-lock brakes (which are now mandatory in Europe), stability control and radar-controlled cruise control.
The most popular comfort and safety features that UK drivers want in their cars are items such as satellite_navigation, climate control, airbags, iPod ports and nifty add-ons such as cup and mobile phone holders.
Some manufacturers believe that if insurers offer a lower premium to drivers of cars with driver assistance systems fitted on their cars, then it would stimulate demand. This was the case in the early stages of the introduction of anti-lock_braking_systems (ABS), when insurance companies offered a lower premium for vehicles fitted with the safety device.
Discussions with insurance groups are ongoing, though progress is reportedly slow.
However, the automotive industry is convinced that a host of driver assistance technologies are coming, accompanied by the European Union's eSafety action programme for road safety, which aims to halve the number of EU road fatalities by 2010.
Driver assistance systems on the detection and analysis of the vehicle's surroundings will make a major contribution to the achievement of this aim. Investigations carried out by the German Ministry of Transport have shown that such systems can have a preventive influence on more than 50% of all accidents.
Driver assistance systems - either on the road or still on the drawing board - divide into three camps:
Collision-warning systems - this is the original term for forward and side radar systems which simply alert the driver but do not control engine speed.
Collision-mitigation systems - in addition to sending out a warning to the driver -- either through audio, visual or vibrating the steering wheel -- these systems aim to assess the danger ahead and trigger various active safety features, such as pretensioning the seatbelts.
Collision-avoidance systems - using these systems mean that some degree of control is taken over from the driver if he or she doesn't react in time to avoid a crash.
In defining driver assistance technologies, an auto executive told just-auto: "We prefer to talk about collision mitigation rather than collision avoidance. That's because we can't see accident-free traffic happening for some time. In the meantime we will look for everything to help to avoid accidents but we know that we will not be 100% successful. So what we see in the near future is driver assistance, i.e. systems that support the driver in his or her tasks, relieving them of the mundane activities.
"It also helps in critical driving situations. When we started developing driver assistance systems, they were perceived as comfort and convenience systems. But now it has changed a little bit in the direction of safety. That means that the driver feels that he or she has a safety technology when buying a driver assistance system. And we see that trend increasing in the future."
The most common suite of driver assistance technologies available today includes adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane change assistance, and parking assistance systems.
The full just-auto.com report, 'Global market review of driver assistance systems - forecasts to 2013' is available for purchase from just-auto's online research store.
Well, it sure is good to see that vehicle manufacturers are making safer vehicles all the time. The article below is quite an eye-opener.
I drive an older vehicle, and when I start adding up all the safety features that are now available, I'm astounded by what's out there: air bags, anti-lock brakes, (two of my favorites) stability control, and satellite navigation. I think the last two are excellent also.
Guess I should break down and purchase a newer vehicle. Even though I rely heavily on my defensive driving skills and a lifetime of collision-free driving, I still wouldn't mind having them in my vehicle. I have written an article on anti-lock brakes which you can read by clicking on this link: http://www.ultimate-driver-training.com/antilock_brakes.html
RESEARCH ANALYSIS: Driver assistance technologies coming despite consumer apathy
28 February 2007 Source: just-auto.com editorial team
Sensors identify the environment of the vehicle and enable early detection of dangerous traffic situations.
view image
Research has shown that driver error is one of the most common causes of traffic accidents. Driver_assistance technologies can therefore provide a vital helping hand in times of trouble.
But surveys show that many drivers assign low priority to 'out of sight' safety items such as anti-lock brakes (which are now mandatory in Europe), stability control and radar-controlled cruise control.
The most popular comfort and safety features that UK drivers want in their cars are items such as satellite_navigation, climate control, airbags, iPod ports and nifty add-ons such as cup and mobile phone holders.
Some manufacturers believe that if insurers offer a lower premium to drivers of cars with driver assistance systems fitted on their cars, then it would stimulate demand. This was the case in the early stages of the introduction of anti-lock_braking_systems (ABS), when insurance companies offered a lower premium for vehicles fitted with the safety device.
Discussions with insurance groups are ongoing, though progress is reportedly slow.
However, the automotive industry is convinced that a host of driver assistance technologies are coming, accompanied by the European Union's eSafety action programme for road safety, which aims to halve the number of EU road fatalities by 2010.
Driver assistance systems on the detection and analysis of the vehicle's surroundings will make a major contribution to the achievement of this aim. Investigations carried out by the German Ministry of Transport have shown that such systems can have a preventive influence on more than 50% of all accidents.
Driver assistance systems - either on the road or still on the drawing board - divide into three camps:
Collision-warning systems - this is the original term for forward and side radar systems which simply alert the driver but do not control engine speed.
Collision-mitigation systems - in addition to sending out a warning to the driver -- either through audio, visual or vibrating the steering wheel -- these systems aim to assess the danger ahead and trigger various active safety features, such as pretensioning the seatbelts.
Collision-avoidance systems - using these systems mean that some degree of control is taken over from the driver if he or she doesn't react in time to avoid a crash.
In defining driver assistance technologies, an auto executive told just-auto: "We prefer to talk about collision mitigation rather than collision avoidance. That's because we can't see accident-free traffic happening for some time. In the meantime we will look for everything to help to avoid accidents but we know that we will not be 100% successful. So what we see in the near future is driver assistance, i.e. systems that support the driver in his or her tasks, relieving them of the mundane activities.
"It also helps in critical driving situations. When we started developing driver assistance systems, they were perceived as comfort and convenience systems. But now it has changed a little bit in the direction of safety. That means that the driver feels that he or she has a safety technology when buying a driver assistance system. And we see that trend increasing in the future."
The most common suite of driver assistance technologies available today includes adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane change assistance, and parking assistance systems.
The full just-auto.com report, 'Global market review of driver assistance systems - forecasts to 2013' is available for purchase from just-auto's online research store.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Parents to protect teens
There are a lot of articles being written about teen drivers and their high collision rate; this is one of the few I've come across that talks about a parents role in their teens safety. I think it's a very good article, and will be helpful for parents of teens.
Click on the link for information on defensive driver education programs
ARA) - Parents, are you protecting your teen driver when she gets behind the wheel?
Traffic crashes result in 44 percent of teen deaths, the leading cause of teen fatalities in the U.S., according to the National Safety Council. But driving and insurance experts agree: parents can play a big role in helping their teens stay safe.
“Parents should monitor their teen’s driving habits and the condition of the vehicle they drive because drivers are responsible for the lives of their passengers and everyone else on the road with them,” says Charles Valinotti of General Casualty.
Grocery Getters are the Way to Go
Putting your child in a safe vehicle helps protect her and could also lower your insurance rates. Valinotti recommends teens drive slightly older, sturdier vehicles in good condition and equipped with safety features. Most vehicles up to 10 years old come with standard safety features, such as airbags, head restraints and anti-lock brakes.
Avoid vehicles with performance features such as turbo-charged engines and high-performance tires which encourage more aggressive driving.
Maintain a Safe Vehicle
“A lot of teens don’t realize vehicle maintenance is just as important as its make and model,” says John Blodnick of Unigard Insurance Company. “It’s your job to make sure the vehicle is running properly -- not just to give them gas money.”
In addition to routine oil changes, Blodnick says, pay special attention to these items to keep your teen driving safely:
* Tire condition -- Make sure tires have good tread, especially in the winter months.
* Tire pressure -- Check pressure regularly, especially in colder weather. Air compresses one pound per square inch (PSI) for each 10-degree temperature drop. Check tire pressure when the vehicle hasn’t been driven and fill to the PSI levels listed on the tires.
* Brakes -- Test brakes regularly. Educate your teens about warning signs, such as squeaking, the need to apply more pressure to stop, or longer stopping time.
* Window washer fluid and blades -- A clean windshield increases visibility. Make sure fluid levels and wiper blades are adequate, especially during snowy conditions.
* Headlights and taillights -- Check to ensure they’re clean and functioning. This increases visibility and can help avoid traffic citations or accidents.
Put it in Writing
Before you hand your child the car keys, Valinotti recommends discussing responsibilities and drawing up a driving contract containing their responsibilities for vehicle maintenance and driving safely, including:
* Obey the speed limit and traffic laws.
* Wear a seatbelt and ensure passengers buckle up too.
* Do not drink or use drugs or ride in a vehicle operated by someone under the influence.
* Follow applicable graduated licensing laws that limit the number of passengers.
* Don’t be distracted by cell phones, iPods and loud music.
* Tell parents where you’re going and when you expect to return.
* Budget enough travel time. Call to let parents know you’re running late instead of speeding and risking an accident to make up time.
* Obey the nighttime driving curfew.
Also discuss the consequences if the rules are broken. These could include loss of driving privileges and paying fines or repair costs. Both parents and teen should sign and date the contract.
“Laws help teens drive safely, but parents can help ensure their kids obey them,” says Valinotti. “You can set a good example when you’re driving and set appropriate limits to ensure safe driving.”
Safety Leads to Savings
Following traffic laws and avoiding citations also help keep insurance rates down. Your teen’s insurance will increase -- even double or triple -- if he is ticketed for driving under the influence. General Casualty, Unigard and other providers offer savings of 10 to 20 percent if your child gets good grades and maintains a “B” or 3.0 grade point average (on a 4.0 scale).
If your child is involved in an accident that damages your car, your insurance rates could increase and end up costing more than the repairs, so keep this in mind when reporting a fender bender. If you can afford to pay for the repairs yourself instead of reporting the claim, you may save money in the long run.
Automotive : Link Sponsors
Click on the link for information on defensive driver education programs
ARA) - Parents, are you protecting your teen driver when she gets behind the wheel?
Traffic crashes result in 44 percent of teen deaths, the leading cause of teen fatalities in the U.S., according to the National Safety Council. But driving and insurance experts agree: parents can play a big role in helping their teens stay safe.
“Parents should monitor their teen’s driving habits and the condition of the vehicle they drive because drivers are responsible for the lives of their passengers and everyone else on the road with them,” says Charles Valinotti of General Casualty.
Grocery Getters are the Way to Go
Putting your child in a safe vehicle helps protect her and could also lower your insurance rates. Valinotti recommends teens drive slightly older, sturdier vehicles in good condition and equipped with safety features. Most vehicles up to 10 years old come with standard safety features, such as airbags, head restraints and anti-lock brakes.
Avoid vehicles with performance features such as turbo-charged engines and high-performance tires which encourage more aggressive driving.
Maintain a Safe Vehicle
“A lot of teens don’t realize vehicle maintenance is just as important as its make and model,” says John Blodnick of Unigard Insurance Company. “It’s your job to make sure the vehicle is running properly -- not just to give them gas money.”
In addition to routine oil changes, Blodnick says, pay special attention to these items to keep your teen driving safely:
* Tire condition -- Make sure tires have good tread, especially in the winter months.
* Tire pressure -- Check pressure regularly, especially in colder weather. Air compresses one pound per square inch (PSI) for each 10-degree temperature drop. Check tire pressure when the vehicle hasn’t been driven and fill to the PSI levels listed on the tires.
* Brakes -- Test brakes regularly. Educate your teens about warning signs, such as squeaking, the need to apply more pressure to stop, or longer stopping time.
* Window washer fluid and blades -- A clean windshield increases visibility. Make sure fluid levels and wiper blades are adequate, especially during snowy conditions.
* Headlights and taillights -- Check to ensure they’re clean and functioning. This increases visibility and can help avoid traffic citations or accidents.
Put it in Writing
Before you hand your child the car keys, Valinotti recommends discussing responsibilities and drawing up a driving contract containing their responsibilities for vehicle maintenance and driving safely, including:
* Obey the speed limit and traffic laws.
* Wear a seatbelt and ensure passengers buckle up too.
* Do not drink or use drugs or ride in a vehicle operated by someone under the influence.
* Follow applicable graduated licensing laws that limit the number of passengers.
* Don’t be distracted by cell phones, iPods and loud music.
* Tell parents where you’re going and when you expect to return.
* Budget enough travel time. Call to let parents know you’re running late instead of speeding and risking an accident to make up time.
* Obey the nighttime driving curfew.
Also discuss the consequences if the rules are broken. These could include loss of driving privileges and paying fines or repair costs. Both parents and teen should sign and date the contract.
“Laws help teens drive safely, but parents can help ensure their kids obey them,” says Valinotti. “You can set a good example when you’re driving and set appropriate limits to ensure safe driving.”
Safety Leads to Savings
Following traffic laws and avoiding citations also help keep insurance rates down. Your teen’s insurance will increase -- even double or triple -- if he is ticketed for driving under the influence. General Casualty, Unigard and other providers offer savings of 10 to 20 percent if your child gets good grades and maintains a “B” or 3.0 grade point average (on a 4.0 scale).
If your child is involved in an accident that damages your car, your insurance rates could increase and end up costing more than the repairs, so keep this in mind when reporting a fender bender. If you can afford to pay for the repairs yourself instead of reporting the claim, you may save money in the long run.
Automotive : Link Sponsors
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)