Vehicle Safety

Industry Experts Hope for Decrease in Crash Fatalities

September 1, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Although shelter-in-place mandates brought on by the coronavirus pandemic have made traffic numbers drop significantly during the first quarter of 2020, there was only a 1% decrease in fatalities compared to those of 2019’s first quarter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s recent “early estimates” report said 7,780 people died in crashes during that period of 2020, which is only 70 fewer than that of last year. Still, preliminary data also show vehicle miles traveled during that time decreased by 40.1 billion miles (5.4%). These numbers do not portray the number of big rig vehicles involved in such crashes.

Additionally, the rate of crash fatality during 2020’s first quarter actually increased to 1.10 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled from the 1.05 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in the period just before.

“Given the unprecedented nature of the health emergency and the limited data collected thus far, it is unclear what conclusions or broader trends can be extrapolated at this point,” said NHTSA. When projections from the first half of the year are released in September, these overall estimations will be refined further.

“Due to recent anecdotal reports of increased speeding and reckless driving on emptier roads in recent months, NHTSA has launched a new summer ad campaign to remind drivers to drive safely as Americans get back on the road,” said the agency. “We will be following the data closely and issuing a special report on traffic safety during this unique period later this summer.”

Some of the administration’s campaign efforts have been seen on Twitter recently.

“Summer vacations may look a little different this year, but summer driving safety tips always apply,” said NHTSA in a tweet. “Wherever you’re headed, keep yourself, your family, and others on the road safe by completing a few vehicle checks and obeying the rules of the road.”

Also in the report were data showing an increase in fatalities between 2017 and 2018 with large-truck occupants, pedestrians, and pedalcyclists. Additionally, crash fatalities increased over 10 consecutive quarters starting in 2014’s fourth quarter. The second quarter of 2017 saw a 1.1% decline which stopped the upward trend, and 2019’s second quarter brought the seventh quarter in a row of yearly fatality decreases since 2017.

In regards to large trucks involved with crash fatalities, the number of these big rigs in fatal crashes increased by 4.6% between 2017 and 2018, with trucks weighing between 10,001 and 14,000 pounds. In the same period, the number of trucks over 26,000 pounds involved with fatal crashes increased by 1.6%.

During these periods, the largest factors in these crashes were: speeding, distraction, and failure to yield right-of-way.

“The first goal is to stop that upward trend,” said FMCSA’s chief safety officer, Jack Van Steenburg at the Transportation Research Board’s annual meeting in January. “For the next several months, we at FMCSA are going to go out and talk to people. We’re going to listen to people. We want to tell them what we’re doing, ask how we can do it better, what can we do differently, and how can we do it differently to prevent these crashes from occurring.”

The NHTSA says it is currently still finalizing data from crash fatalities during 2018 and 2019 by “using information from police crash reports and other sources.” and that it is “too soon to speculate on the contributing factors or potential implications of any changes in deaths on our roadways.” When the final file for 2018 and annual report for 2019 become available this fall, it will likely result “in the revision of fatality totals and the ensuing rates and percentage changes.”

Jim Mullen, acting FMCSA Administrator, said that he has been working diligently to find ways to reverse the increase of large-truck fatalities that have been present over the last four years.

“When I assumed this role as an acting administrator three months ago, the members of this panel asked me what are my top priorities,” Mullen said at the annual TRB meeting. “That, to me, was a no-brainer. The top priority for me at this agency is to reverse that four-year trend [of] increasing fatalities involved with large trucks and buses.”

AV Testing Data to be Shared Publicly by DOT Though New Transparency Program

August 21, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A new program launched by the U.S. The Department of Transportation aims to improve transparency to the public and inform more people about current automated vehicle technology.

During a webinar event last month, leaders within the DOT introduced the Automated Vehicle Transparency and Engagement for Safe Testing (AV TEST) initiative. This effort will work toward heightening engagement among the public, industry representatives, and government leaders. It will also bring stronger transparency through “an online, public-facing platform for sharing automated driving system on-road testing activities.”

It’s the most accessible platform of its kind for these tests, said Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. “Through this initiative, the department is creating a formal platform for federal, state, and local governments and industry stakeholders,” she explained.

During a time where automated vehicle technology has been at the forefront of industry innovations for a while now, many Americans have expressed skepticism in terms of this technology’s safety. The NHTSA is planning “online mapping tools” that will show activity data and testing locations, which will hopefully improve overall public awareness and trust in these inventive efforts.

James Owens, Deputy NHTSA Administrator, said that boosting transparency “encourages everybody to up their game to help better ensure that the testing is done in a manner fully consistent with safety.” Owens also explained that AV TEST will be open to all stakeholders who are involved in safe testing of automated trucking systems. These participants include Toyota Motor Corp., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Uber Technologies Inc., Cruise (General Motors Co.’s self-driving subsidiary), and Waymo, as well as the states of California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

These efforts will serve as a huge tool in educating the public about all factors of this automated technology, as well as information about the stakeholders participating in its progress. Currently, because there are so many misconceptions and fears around these kinds of vehicles, Owens says this kind of candid information is most important.

“These systems have the promise to help prevent fatal crashes, save lives, and reduce crash severity,” he said. “Public trust will be the key to their adoption.”

Owens also explained that the goal of NHTSA is to “pull together really critical stakeholders to deepen the lines of communication and cooperation among all of us,” and that this was “an opportunity for the states to start sharing information among themselves.”

Critics of current AV system regulations want NHTSA to mandate federal safety standards for all automated driving technology.

In its investigation of a pedestrian death involved in an Uber AV test vehicle crash, the National Transportation Safety Board said that the NHTSA needed to create self-driving vehicle safety assessments that are mandated and that properly ensure AV vehicles have the necessary safeguards in place.

According to Owens, NHTSA “will not hesitate” to intervene if vehicles are being tested unsafely, although the agency has not yet adopted the recommendations set forth by the NTSB.

AV 4.0, DOT’s latest federal update of AV tech guidelines, was released in January, and is called “Ensuring American Leadership in Automated Vehicle Technologies.” The update aims to be a set of principles to unify a collective of 38 federal departments, agencies, executive offices, and commissions. It will also provide guidance to local and state government agencies, industry representatives, and technology efforts.

Administration actions have pushed forward AV technology growth, government collaboration efforts, and American AV tech principles that have worked together in a collaborative mindset to structure these new guidelines. AV 4.0 is meant to help the industry work towards a safety-centered, innovative, and consistent approach to the regulation of self-driving technology.

“We’ll make it available for you to view,” said the NHTSA on its website, referring to the new platform for public observation of AV tech efforts. “You’ll be able to see if testing has been reported in your community and learn more about the types of activities happening, including testing of various types of motor vehicles–cars, low-speed shuttles, trucks, and driverless electric delivery vehicles.”

The agency explains that the possibilities around safer roads are growing quickly with these innovations: “The continuing evolution of automotive technology aims to deliver even greater safety benefits and automated driving systems that–one day–can handle the whole task of driving when we don’t want to or can’t do it ourselves. The AV TEST Initiative is another way that NHTSA is convening and facilitating initiatives with stakeholders to support the safe development, testing, and integration of automated vehicle technologies in the United States.”

Autonomous Vehicles May Not be the Answer to Safer Roads

August 13, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Autonomous vehicles have widely been speculated as becoming an industry changer in regards to safety, as driver mistakes account for almost all deadly crashes. However, according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, only a third of all crashes could potentially be avoided if automated systems operate too similarly to human drivers.

Although autonomous vehicles will, at some point, be able to spot hazards and obstacles and react to safely avoid them much faster than humans, and they won’t operate with any distractions, stopping crashes altogether is still a huge challenge.

“We’re still going to see some issues even if autonomous vehicles might react more quickly than humans do,” said vice president of research for the institute and co-author of the study, Jessica Cicchino. “They’re not going to always be able to react instantaneously.”

Because of this, the Institute’s study found that although driver error is the ruling factor in 9 out of 10 crashes, only a third of those were due to mistakes that automated vehicles could avoid due to their superior perception abilities. To avoid the remaining two-thirds of crashes, automated vehicles would need programming to specifically prioritize safety over everything else–including speed.

“Building self-driving cars that drive as well as people do is a big challenge in itself,” said lead author of the study and research scientist for IIHS, Alexandra Mueller. “But, they’d actually need to be better than that to deliver on the promises we’ve all heard.”

The institution studied over 5,000 crashes caused by “sensing and perceiving” errors like driver distraction, failing to spot hazards in time, or impaired visibility, as found by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Crashes were also distinguished by “incapacitation,” such as drivers being impaired by drugs or alcohol, medical problems, or severe fatigue. The study found that autonomous vehicles can prevent these issues.

“It’s likely that fully self-driving cars will eventually identify hazards better than people, but we found that this alone would not prevent the bulk of crashes,” Cicchino explained.

Some of these unavoidable challenges for current self-driving technology include planning errors, like driving too fast for certain road conditions; execution errors, like unsafe evasive maneuvers; or misjudging another vehicle’s speed.

Error-free, 360 degree perception by these vehicles is key, Cicchino said. She referenced one example: if a cyclist or other vehicle suddenly enters an autonomous vehicle’s path, the self-driving car could likely not stop or steer away fast enough.

“Autonomous vehicles need to not only perceive the world around them perfectly, they need to respond to what’s around them as well,” Cicchino said.

In the study, crashes as a result of sensing and perceiving errors made up 24% of all accidents, and incapacitation made for 10%. These particular crashes are thought to have been potentially avoided if all on-road vehicles were self-driving. However, these autonomous vehicles would need to have zero malfunctions, and the remaining crashes could still take place unless these vehicles were able to specifically avoid other decision-making errors.

Duke University robotics and human factors professor, Missy Cummings, gave her thoughts on the study. She explained that technology is not likely to prevent even one-third of crashes caused by human error right now, as self-driving vehicles with radar, laser, and camera sensors still often cannot perform perfectly in any situation.

“There is a probability that even when all three sensor systems come to bear, that obstacles can be missed,” she said. “No driverless car company has been able to do that reliably. They know that, too.”

Cummings also explained that those working in the business of self-driving vehicles did not plan for any technology to prevent all human-caused crashes. That belief, she said, would be “layman’s conventional wisdom that somehow this technology is going to be a panacea that is going to prevent all death.”

Researchers from IIHS who studied crash causes made the ultimate decisions about which ones could be prevented altogether with only autonomous vehicles on the road, according to Cicchino. When self-driving vehicles share the road with human drivers, even fewer crashes will be able to be prevented.

“Our analysis shows that it will be crucial for designers to prioritize safety over rider preferences if autonomous vehicles are to live up to their promise to be safer than human drivers,” said Mueller.

Lithium Battery Led to Fiery Death in Tesla Crash, NTSB Says

January 26, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A May 2018 Florida crash involving a speeding teen driver and passenger became deadly after a subsequent fire was caused in part by the Tesla Inc. vehicle’s lithium battery, according to a recent federal investigation.

The 18-year-old driver had been previously cited for speeding, and was traveling at speeds up to 116 mph in a Model S when he lost control on a Fort Lauderdale curve with a speed limit of 25 mph, the National Transportation Safety Board explained in its December 19th report.

The report determined that the fire contributed greatly to both deaths, even though the passenger had already sustained head and torso injuries during the crash.

A passenger in the backseat was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the car upon impact, but survived with various fractures.

This is one of several crashes currently under review by the NTSB involving lithium-based battery-involved fires in vehicles such as Teslas. These highly flammable batteries cause fires that are difficult to extinguish, and can even reignite hours or days after a crash has taken place.

During this accident, firefighters arrived on scene four minutes after the first emergency call, and reported the fire’s heat was incredibly strong and that they could see electrical arcing, according to NTSB’s report.

Responders used between 200 and 300 gallons of water and foam to combat the flames, but the battery still reignited two more times. Additionally, a piece of the main battery came into contact with a metal chain and briefly ignited on its own. Firefighters continued to spray the battery once more after it caught fire while being loaded onto a tow truck.

In another case which occurred in 2019, a Model S Tesla driver lost control on a South Florida road and collided with a palm tree; however, his family’s lawyers said the car’s battery and designs were the cause of his death–not the crash itself.

According to the wrongful death lawsuit, the Tesla’s lithium battery immediately caught fire after the crash, causing smoke and flames to fill the car and suffocate the driver. A crowd had gathered at the scene, but was unable to help.

Why? Allegedly, Tesla’s retractable door handles failed to “auto-present” and disallowed first responders to open the doors and save the driver.

“The fire engulfed the car and burned Dr. Awan beyond recognition–all because the Model S has inaccessible door handles, no other way to open the doors, and an unreasonable dangerous fire risk,” said the complaint. “These Model S defects, and others, rendered it a death trap.”

Tesla has claimed that its Model S vehicle once achieved “the best safety rating of any car test,” which is the reason his family’s attorney, Stuart Grossman, cited for Aman’s decision to purchase the luxury vehicle in the first place.

“These things, they just love to burn,” Grossman said. “The car is so over-engineered. It’s so techy, it makes you want to buy a Chevy pickup truck.”

These are only two Tesla-related deaths in a string of incidents that blame the carmaker’s technology.

In April, parking garage surveillance footage from Shanghai depicted a smoking Model S finally bursting into flames–a video which pressured Tesla to begin an internal investigation.

We’ve reported on other accidents–even deadly ones–related to Tesla’s “Autopilot” automated driver-assistance feature.

“There are a number of these cases,” said Grossman. “What the hell is going on?”

Regarding Awan’s case, as well as others, Tesla has maintained that any high-speed crash may end up in flames regardless of how the vehicle is powered. However, Awan had survived his crash–but would have been able to escape the fire had the doors been operating properly and allowed responders to pull him out.

The lawsuit says the innovative features made the car “defective” and dangerous,” and that the door handles added to the major issue of an “inherently unstable” lithium ion battery.

“Tesla failed to warn users about the scope and extent of the defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of the Model S,” said the complaint.

After firefighters extinguished the flames in Awan’s incident, the Tesla was taken to a tow yard, where it reignited and burned once again.

Chicago Releases Long-Expected West Side Traffic Safety Plan

October 10, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Mayor Lori Lightfoot and the city of Chicago recently announced a West Side Vision Zero Traffic Safety Plan, which aims to address the prior administration’s intent to create a comprehensive infrastructure plan based on “crash data to identify 43 high crash corridors and eight high crash areas in Chicago,” according to SmartCitiesWorld, an online publisher specializing in infrastructure analysis. The new plan comes on the footsteps of the city’s announcement that it would spend $6 million on establishing proper infrastructure and safety on the West Side of Chicago. As part of this initiative, the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), recently installed pedestrian islands at the intersection of Madison St. and St. Louis Avenue. This announcement and the work soon to begin on the West Side is all being done under the City’s Vision Zero Chicago initiative, part of a global movement that addresses fatal infrastructure issues throughout cities with the belief that crashes can be easily avoided so long as the proper infrastructure is in place.

According to the Vision Zero Principles the city prominently displays on its website, the new initiative sets out to adopt and implement specific plans that match accordingly to high crash areas. As discussed above, the recent pedestrian islands that were installed on the West Side are just the beginning of acknowledging and trying to alleviate the injuries likely to occur in neighborhoods with dangerous infrastructure issues. Overall, actions such as these fit under the umbrella of the City’s ultimate goals which it declares are to:

Invest equitably in communities that are most affected by severe traffic crashes.
Work to change behaviors and perceptions to build citywide culture of safety.
Make streets safer for all users.
Encourage and implement policies, training, and technologies that create safer vehicles and professional drivers.

All of this goes to say that Chicago understands there are communities that have long been neglected when it comes to issues such as infrastructure; and the West Side is certainly one of those communities. As the initial high crash data showed, seven of the eight high crash areas were located on the West and South sides of Chicago. With the introduction of this new plan, residents of these communities will be receiving long awaited uptick in public safety standards that will render the roads and sidewalks far safer for all.

The West Side Initiative

Although the official plan has yet to be posted to the City’s dedicated website for this topic, Streetsblog Chicago wrote an analysis of what can be expected. “The Vision Zero West Side Plan includes 15 strategies to improve traffic and pedestrian safety in East and West Garfield Park, North Lawndale and Austin. The recommendations include safety improvement around transit stations; efforts to promote walking and biking to school.” Overall, the new plan appears to go all in on alleviating a lot of the issues that have plagued this part of the City for years. What makes this plan different than other projects that have been announced in the past is the fact that it truly is comprehensive and input from community leaders on the West Side and all around the city have been taken into consideration. For example, in creating the West Side initiative, the CDOT worked with the Garfield Park Community Council, the North Lawndale Community Coordinating Council, Lawndale Christian Health Center, Build, and Austin Coming Together.

While the plan that has been proposed appears to be all about public safety policy, there’s more to it that CDOT is hoping truly transforms how people travel on the West Side and engage with their community. For example, while traffic safety is a key part of the initiative, the plan also calls for job creation and an increase in quality of life. One way it aims to achieve these two goals is through allowing residents to feel safe walking, biking, and using public transportation. While such things and fixing light poles and cleaning up transit areas seem small, the reality is that actions such as this make individuals more likely to use means other than driving for transportation purposes. As we have repeatedly addressed, the more individuals on the roads and increasing the odds of traffic throughout the city, the more crashes and injuries that will result so long as infrastructure issues remain.

Ultimately, this new initiative may appear to be no more than a pipe dream for communities that have long been promised change throughout the city, but the real hope remains that CDOT will hold to its plan and transform parts of the city and will keep those on the road safe, and the residents in the community much safer.

The Safest (and Least Safe) Pickups for 2019 and 2020

October 7, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Thinking of a new pickup truck?

Although larger passenger vehicles, such as pickups and SUVs, have bigger structures making them better able to absorb crash energy, SUVs and pickups are proportionally more likely to be involved in fatal single-vehicle crashes–especially in the event of a rollover.

Because of this, it is of the utmost importance for any potential pickup owner to be aware of the ins and outs of safety regarding these particular vehicles, and how the newest models on the market hold up to standards.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has released the results of 2019 and 2020 full-size pickup trucks. These tests included: frontal crash small and moderate overlap, side crash, roof strength press, head restraint and seat safety, headlight evaluation, front crash prevention tech, and child seat anchor ability.

Without further ado, here are the most and least safe, full-size, half-ton pickup trucks for 2019 and 2020.

Safety ratings scale ranges from Poor to Marginal to Acceptable to Good.

Not-So-Safe:

Toyota Tundra

Small overlap front: driver side = marginal. Structure = marginal. Lower leg = poor.

Small overlap front: passenger side = poor. Structure = poor. Hip = marginal. Lower leg = poor.

Moderate overlap front: driver side = good.

Side = good.

Roof strength = acceptable. (Curb weight: 5,432 lbs, 3.94 times → 21,384 lbs).

Head restraints & seats = good.

Headlights = marginal. Visibility on left = fair. Visibility on right = inadequate. Visibility on curves = inadequate. High-beam assist is present.

Front Crash Prevention = superior. Forward collision warning meets standards. 12 mph – 25 mph collision avoidance is present.

Child seat anchors = acceptable. Two positions have LATCH hardware. Third position is tether only.

Safer:

Nissan Titan

Small overlap front: driver side = good. Lower leg = acceptable.

Small overlap front: passenger side = good. Structure = acceptable.

Moderate overlap front: driver side = good.

Side = good. Driver torso rating = acceptable.

Roof strength = good. (Curb weight: 5,460 lbs, 4.55 times → 24,857 lbs).

Head restraints & seats = good.

Headlights = marginal. Visibility on straightaways = fair. Visibility on curves = inadequate.

Front Crash Prevention = no crash prevention. 360-degree camera, blind spot monitors, and rear cross-traffic alerts are present.

Child seat anchors = acceptable. Two seats have LATCH hardware. Third position is tether only.

Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra 1500

Small overlap front: driver side = good. Structure/safety cage = acceptable. Lower leg = acceptable.

Small overlap front: passenger side = marginal. Structure/safety cage = poor.

Moderate overlap front: driver side = good.

Side = good.

Roof strength = good. (Curb weight: 4,818 lbs, 4.62 times → 22,236 lbs).

Head restraints & seats = good.

Headlights = poor. Visibility on straightaways = good. Visibility on left curves = fair. Visibility on right curves = inadequate.

Front Crash Prevention = superior. Forward collision warning meets standards. 12 mph – 25 mph collision avoidance is present.

Child seat anchors = marginal. Two positions have lower seat anchors. Third position is tether only.

Ford F-150

Small overlap front: driver side = good.

Small overlap front: passenger side = good.

Moderate overlap front: driver side = good.

Side = good.

Roof strength = good. (Curb weight: 4,651 lbs, 5,85 times → 27,215 lbs).

Head restraints & seats = good.

Headlights = poor. Visibility on straightaways = inadequate. Visibility on curves = inadequate. Raptor lights: poor; but work better on straightaways.

Front Crash Prevention = superior. Forward collision warning meets standards. 12 mph – 25 mph collision avoidance is present.

Child seat anchors = marginal. Two positions have lower seat anchors. Third position is tether only.

Safest:

Ram 1500

Currently the only full-size pickup truck with a “Top Safety Pick+” rating.

Small overlap front: driver side = good. Lower leg = acceptable.

Small overlap front: passenger side = good. Structure = acceptable.

Moderate overlap front: driver side = good.

Side = good.

Roof strength = good. (Curb weight: 5,254 lbs, 4.24 times → 22,302 lbs).

Head restraints & seats = good.

Headlights = good (on Longhorn and Limited trims). Curve adapting and high-beam assist are present. Gradual left turn light = inadequate.

Front Crash Prevention = superior. Forward collision warning meets standard. 12 mph – 25 mph collision avoidance is present.

Child seat anchors = marginal. All three rear positions have LATCH seat anchors.

According to IIHS, two tests of the RAM 1500 Crew Cab were conducted and the specifications for each test were identical. As a “Top Safety Pick+” for 2019 and 2020, this truck needed ‘good’ ratings in its driver-side small overlap front, passenger-side overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a ‘superior’ rating in front crash prevention and a ‘good’ headlight rating.

IIHS’ 2019 “Top Safety Pick” was the Honda Ridgeline, awarded for its optional front crash prevention and specific headlights.