Smart car does well in IIHS tests...with caveats

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) announced the results of its Smart Fortwo crash tests today. The car earned a good rating (the highest score) in both the 40 mph frontal offset test into a stationary deformable barrier and the side-impact test where the driver's side of the car is hit by a simulated pickup or SUV moving at 31 mph. In the test for rear crash protection, the seat/head restraints of the car earned the second highest rating of Acceptable.

However as Adrian Lund, president of the Institute stated, "All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package." The Institute's test results generally show how well vehicles compare against others of similar size and weight. Frontal ratings can't be compared across weight classes, which means a small car that earns a good rating isn't necessarily safer on the road than a large car that's not rated as highly in the test.

The Smart has a very short "crumple zone" ahead of the occupant compartment, which means the seat belts and airbags must take a bigger share of the load in protecting the driver and passenger in a frontal crash. In fact, the head of the driver dummy hit the steering wheel through the airbag with enough force to indicate the possibility of head injury.

In the side-impact test, all forces recorded on the driver dummy were low, indicating little risk of injury. The car has standard head/torso side airbags, which pop out of the seat during severe side impacts to cushion the head and chest. However, just as in the NHTSA side impact test, the driver door unlatched, posing the risk of partial or complete occupant ejection, especially if the seat belt isn't used. The structure was therefore downgraded to an acceptable rating.

The entire IIHS press release can be found here. A more humorous take entitled "Smart Deemed Safe. Kinda." was posted in The Truth About Cars.

Signs, signs, everywhere a sign (continued)

On the way home from work on Friday, I decided to count the number of road signs on my usual route. The trip length is about 12.5 miles, including 10 miles on major 4-lane divided highways, 2 miles on residential or rural 2-lane roads, and a half mile on the driveway at my place of work.

On the first stretch, after leaving my employer's driveway, I counted only 6 signs -- 2 speed limit signs, 2 stop signs, and 2 "stop ahead" signs. Once I entered the 4-lane highways, it was a very different story. I counted 97 signs! This does not include standard street name signs, commercial or business signs, or double-counting the same signs when they appear on both the left and right sides of the roadway. I encountered everything from speed limit signs and "signal ahead" and "crossroad ahead" signs to silly signs like "littering is illegal" (does anyone not realize it's illegal?) and "keep Virginia green." I did not count signs not facing in my direction, such as the numerous red and white "wrong way" signs or the "one way" signs facing vehicles entering from side roads or business parking lots.

When I turned onto the residential/collector road leading to my subdivision, I encountered only 8 signs, including speed limit and bridge load limit signs, a "neighborhood watch" sign, and a curve/intersection warning sign. In my subdivision itself, there are no signs heading in the direction toward my house.

All I can conclude is we really ought to consider cutting the clutter and retaining only the most meaningful signs. Otherwise, one just tends to tune out ALL of the signs, especially if you've been traveling the same route for over 15 years like me.

Merry Christmas!

And have a happy and safe New Year!

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Here's a quote from "Dynamic88" commenting on this news article in The Truth About Cars:

"I don’t know what tougher licensing requirements has to do with this [getting people to drive more safely, especially in regard to controlling their speed]. People speed because they want to. If we could figure out how to do something about the stupidity factor, then we’d be making progress."

Another crash death close to home

Back on May 19, I posted an item about highway crash deaths that occurred near my residence. Another roadside memorial recently went up for the death of Gabriel ("Gabe") Ryan Dean on August 30, 2007. He was only 25 years old and died within a quarter mile of the location where Travis Fitzgerald, mentioned in my earlier post, lost his life. According to police, Dean apparently lost control of his Yamaha R1 motorcycle in a curve while traveling at what may have been a higher speed than recommended for the curve. The motorcycle struck the guardrail shown in the photo, and the helmeted rider was thrown off his bike. The tragedy is that more than 100 deaths, on average, occur every day on US roads. But has highway safety ever been mentioned by any of the 2008 presidential candidates? Not that I can recall -- John Edwards' pricey haircuts get more attention!

Higher speed limits INCREASE safety?

I couldn't believe my eyes when I came across the above op-ed headline (without the question mark and all caps) when I saw it in a copy of The Reflector, the student newspaper of Mississippi State University. The author, Lazarus Austin, was making the argument that in all cases where speed limits are raised in the US, highway deaths go down. He cited the myth of the German Autobahn, where death rates are supposedly lower than on US interstates, despite no limits on speed in most places. (This is no longer true, as more and more segments of the Autobahn do have posted limits.) He also stated that highway deaths increased when the speed limits across the US were lowered to 55 mph in 1974 following the Arab Oil Embargo. And he didn't fail to trot out the hoary falsehood that insurance companies support lower speed limits to rake in more profits. (After all, those speeding tickets give insurers an excuse to raise premiums.)

There was no way I was going to let this one go by, so I promptly fired off an e-mail to the author:

Mr. Austin,

After I read your editorial with incredulity, I was wondering if you attend Car and Driver College or the University of Motor Trend instead of Mississippi State University. What would you say to the following headlines, "Quitting Smoking Increases Cancer Risk," or "Condom Use Increases Chances of Getting HIV/AIDS?"

I'll have more to say in my blog about your blatant twisting of the facts regarding travel speeds and speed limits. In the meantime, I'd suggest you spend your time reading more authoritative material on highway safety rather than your favorite car enthusiast magazine.
__________________________

As it turned out, I didn't have to say anything more. Adrian Lund, Ph.D., the president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, had sent this response to Mr. Austin, which was published in The Reflector:

It wasn't surprising to read that a young male driver finds speed limits inconvenient ["Higher speed limits increase safety," Oct. 16], but it's unfortunate that someone majoring in history would be so lax with the facts.

The author claims that higher speed limits have led to a decrease in the overall fatality rate. Basing such a claim on the overall death rate on all types of roads makes no sense. Many factors have pushed down the fatality rate over time including safer vehicles and increased safety belt use. Correlating speed limits on some highways to overall traffic death rates on all roads is like using national precipitation figures to measure rainfall amounts from Hurricane Katrina.

You have to look at the specific roads where the speed limits changed to measure the effect. Study after study shows more highway deaths when speed limits are raised.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety research found 400 more deaths in 1989 alone on the roads where the speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 mph.

The author also is ignorant of the facts about the Autobahn. Research shows that from 1975 to 1986, before speed limits on rural interstates in this country began being raised from 55 to 65 mph, the death rate on the Autobahn was higher than on US interstates. Germany also has more stringent laws including a 50-mph speed limit for large trucks and a driving age of 18. Young male drivers have by far the highest crash rates, so perhaps the author would consider raising the driving age to keep the most dangerous drivers in the US off the road.

The bottom line is that safety is compromised, not enhanced, by higher speeds. There are plenty of opinions about speed limits. A discussion about raising them needs to be based on the facts.

"Advanced" driver training for teens...worth it?

A poster on the forums on edmunds.com recently posed the following questions:

[I] drove back from MA with a couple from Europe the other day - (Germany and Holland). Trip was about 250 miles, and we got to talking about driving.

Their perception was that in the US driving is more haphazard... no lane discipline, erratic speeds etc, when compared to what they are used to in Europe.

Soooo, I'd like to ask about others' perceptions, and I hope we can do it without the whole "It's my right to drive as fast/slow/in between as I want in whichever lane I want" trip.

Do you feel that we are inherently safer on the roads, are you comfortable with your own skill, do you feel that driver training does anything for our young people.... those kinda questions.

As an example, Mr. 16 just got his driver's license, and I am not happy. To put it bluntly, the kid can't drive! He had driver's ed. at school, I paid for a few sessions with a driving school, and I did a lot of seat time with him, along with conversations about driving theory... however, the hand/eye coordination is not there yet, and I am concerned.

I plan taking him to a real driving school, something like Barber, Bondurant, or the equivalent, and (as much as it will increase my stress level in the short term, I'll be teaching him to drive a stick.

What other thoughts are out there?

I responded with the following:

My advice is to forget the "advanced" driving schools (I know this is heresy to some). I attended AutoWeek's Teen Driving Safety Summit in late August in the Detroit suburbs. In connection with Dodge and the Richard Petty Driving Experience, they provided an afternoon's worth of hands-on instruction in skid control, hard braking, and shoulder recovery for the attendees.

It was interesting to be able to experience skids and learn how to correct them (although I pretty much knew what to do from when we had something called "snow" back in the old days).

What amazed me was how hard it was to get the cars to skid in the first place, and this was on pavement liberally sprayed with soapy water. This confirms why in almost 40 years of driving, I've never skidded on dry or even wet pavement except briefly in a straight line for making hard stops. And I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've had to swerve sharply into another lane or partway off the road.

Rather, it's by learning to pay attention to your surroundings, drive at a prudent speed for conditions, anticipate what other drivers may or may not do, and act accordingly. If you drive in this manner, chances are you won't have to make an emergency maneuver in the first place other than a little hard braking.

As a parent, you're in the ideal position to give your son as much experience behind the wheel with you at his side. It's only through repetition that the above skills will be learned, and one day's worth of "advanced driving school" won't do the trick.

Now it wouldn't hurt to show him how to handle skids, but this should be icing on the cake, and you'll have to wait until there's snow or ice on the ground to do it safely at low speeds in a large empty parking lot (assuming security guards won't shoo you away).

Highway safety...1950s style!

This billboard was spotted along US Route 250 near Dennison in the eastern part of Ohio. This is a real throwback to the 50s when we exhorted drivers to do the right thing and drive safely. Back then, scientific analysis of the causes of crashes, deaths, and injuries on US highways was in its infancy, and most popular messages were directed toward the driver. Now, we have a more enlightened viewpoint, and we know that it’s very hard to persuade or otherwise “educate” drivers not to crash. We take a much more balanced approach, exemplified by the “Haddon Matrix,” developed by William Haddon, Jr, MD, the first administrator of what became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The Haddon Matrix considers all factors before, during, and after a crash: human (the driver, cyclist, or pedestrian), vehicular, and environmental (the road and roadside). For example, daytime running lights added to a vehicle can make it more visible before a potential crash, reducing the possibility of a crash with another vehicle in the first place. During a crash, built-in safety features in the car such as airbags can greatly reduce the possibility of death or injury. And prompt response by trained paramedics after the crash can further improve the chances of survival and recovery. Today, we practice this much more balanced approach to highway safety. Sadly however, not all measures that we know to be effective, such as mandatory motorcycle helmet use laws, are in place because of political pressure.

Aloha! Hawaii reports record seat belt use

A recent article in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper stated that seat belt use by front seat occupants had climbed to a record 97.6% in the Aloha State. This boggles my mind when I see so many people not using seat belts in central Virginia where I live. One important factor is that Hawaii has a so-called "primary" seat belt use law, where unbelted occupants can be cited directly by the police. Virginia by contrast has a so-called "secondary" law, where the car can be stopped only if some other violation, such as speeding, is first observed by a police officer.

Studies have shown that states with primary laws have greater belt use AND have fewer vehicle occupant deaths when population and other factors are taken into account. This is not surprising, because seat belts when used are very effective in saving lives in car crashes, and the unbelted tend to be the riskiest drivers and passengers. So getting these holdouts to wear belts brings the greatest benefits.

There is a rather interesting pattern as to whether a state has a primary or secondary law. Most of the coastal states (excluding New England) as well as the deep South, have primary laws. The plains and mountain states tend to have secondary laws, and the midwestern states are mixed. California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii all have use rates above 90%, the highest in the country. New Hampshire (the only state with no belt use law), the Dakotas, and West Virginia bring up the rear, with only about 50% belt use.

New England with its tradition of individualism has secondary belt use laws, except for Connecticut (primary) and of course New Hampshire (no law). Maine just recently adopted a primary law, slated to go into effect in September. Massachusetts and the upper New England states were among the last in the US to adopt mandatory belt use laws.

Thus, there isn't too much of a liberal vs. conservative pattern on seat belt laws with the "conservative" South having tougher laws than the "liberal" Northeast for example.

Corzine crash...the aftermath

"I'm New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, and I should be dead," begins a new public service ad promoting seat belt use released ahead of the Memorial Day weekend. The governor was critically injured last month when his state trooper-driven SUV was clipped by a pickup truck on the Garden State Parkway. His SUV was traveling 91 mph in a 65 mph zone. Corzine wasn't wearing a seat belt and sustained fractures of his leg, collar bone, sternum, and 11 ribs. The trooper driving the SUV was wearing his belt and had minor injuries.

In the ad, Corzine states that he lost more than half of his blood, spent eight days in intensive care, and had to use a ventilator. He continues, "it took a remarkable team of doctors and a series of miracles to save my life when all I needed was a seat belt...I have to live with my mistake. You don't. Buckle up."

On your way home from Memorial Day activities today, remember his words. And control your speed. These can save your life!

If only, if only...

Enthusiasts bewail the dearth of effective driver education. Send everyone to those "advanced" driving schools, they say, where the techniques of skid control, evasive maneuvering, and finding the best line through a curve will make everyone a true expert on the highways.

Unfortunately, as much as I personally would very much like to take such a course, mandating such training is highly overrated, IMO. No one has yet devised a proven method to keep drivers from crashing. I know that Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia has recently released a study saying that their training "works" in reducing crash rates. As much as I believe the school does its best at training, I remain skeptical of their expertise in conducting a valid scientific study, a possible conflict of interest notwithstanding.

As for how drivers really behave, just look in the mirror. Many of you boast in your articles, blogs, chat rooms, and letters to the editor of driving at insane speeds, "stretching it" when traffic lights turn yellow, "brake checking," and purposely damaging others' cars (keying). You know better of course, but you do it anyway.

It's attitude more than knowledge that counts, IMO. Sure there are some truly clueless or incompetent drivers out there, but my guess is their numbers are small in comparison to those whose number one priority is ME ME ME, so get out of my way or let me alone in the left lane while I yak on my cell phone!

So...we should put our bucks where they would do the most good. Every year, over 16 million new vehicles are sold in the US. Why not continue to equip them with the latest safety features that are shown to be effective, such as electronic stability control?

As far as enforcement, we can't afford to have more police on the roads, so why not use red-light cameras and speed cameras? They've been shown to be effective as well. And before you scream "Big Brother," why is it okay to be videotaped when you're in a bank, Wal-Mart, or 7-Eleven but not on a public street? (And if you obey the law on the street, you won't be videotaped, unlike the private businesses.) No one should expect a right to privacy when you're in plain view with a means of identification (your license plate) every time you venture out of your driveway in your car.