Car Safety or Lack Thereof

[Sean Malone]

Modern commercial airliners have multiple aids that assist the pilots in safely flying their planes such as a computer generated voice that warns them if they are dangerously losing altitude and even going so far as to recommend they “pull up! Pull up!”.

My parents came over for the late game yesterday and on their way home the car next to them at the stop light didn’t look when the light turned and was t-boned by a car that ran the red. My mom was driving and she said she always looks left and right, never just trusting the green since moving down to FL (intersection accidents are a common thing to witness here. I’ve seen 5 bad ones since I’ve moved here!).

It seems like a vocal warning system installed in cars would essentially eliminate people inadvertently running a red light. It could be something very generic as “you are approaching an intersection”. I’m guessing GPS units do this already? If the music is load, the computer turns the music down. (sidebar: I had a Chevy rental a couple of years ago and every time I stepped on the brakes the stereo would turn down to a very faint volume. I thought it was broken! It drove me crazy!)

With the computer processing power that we have today that we waste on silly youtube video’s and myspace pages, you would think that some of that power could be focused on safety instead of automotive home theater integration. For a computer to factor speed vs distance and stop light status would be elementary. “Red light ahead!” Slow down!”.

I can even see the point where the computer would apply the brakes based on the speed/distance/light status. The computer could establish if there is anyone behind that would be affected by an emergency stop via rear camera (that are already in many vehicles for parking assists) and also establish if an accident is imminent based on forward camera and maybe even GPS.

At the very least, etch rumble strips in at every intersection (like they do for toll booths etc). Job security for the state employees.

It just seems to me that in 2008 I thought we would have “smarter” cars that aided in safety. The average 2008 model doesn’t have any newer safety features than the cars of the late ‘80’s.

Mercedes Benz claims that the #1 most beneficial safety feature in their testing is to delete the steering wheel and implement joystick type of steering done via “drive by wire” i.e. computer controlled but that the govt powers that be won’t let them.

/Nader channeling

[KLang]

I think you may be assuming incorrectly that people are running the red lights inadvertently. Most I see doing every day are doing it willfully, withour regard for anyone else or themselves. I thought it was even worse arround Miami when we lived there. You could consistantly count on three cars making a left turn after the light had turned red.

I can't see a audio warning doing any good. Besides, how would the vehicle know which language to speak? ;)

[trish]

People run red lights on purpose. I see it almost every day.

[Insomniac]

Okay, I think we all now know, don't move to Florida or Houston. People there either don't care what color a traffic light is or are too stupid to know.

On topic, you would still need something to transmit traffic signal information so the car can process it. You would also need to integrate it with GPS so it knows which traffic light is what color for the intersection you are approaching. We are starting to see sensors to aid in parking, heads up displays, some Volvos can warn you if you're following too closely (and I think slow you down) or are moving out of your lane without signaling, and if you are dozing off at the wheel. They are doing some things now to improve safety.

[nrc]

I enjoy driving so I'm not a big fan of the notion of having the controls taken away. Advisory stuff would be fine. "SLOW DOWN!" "STOP DRIVING LIKE A MORON!" "WHY ARE YOU GOING 50 IN THE PASSING LANE?" "STOP THE CAR - I CAN'T TAKE THIS."

[dando]

I think they should pop those little stop thingies they have @ car rental lots and some parking lots. That'll fix the red light running. :gomer: Big thing around here are red light cameras. They can't get them installed soon enough on a couple of intersection I frequent. :irked:

-Kevin

[dando]

Advisory stuff would be fine. "SLOW DOWN!" "STOP DRIVING LIKE A MORON!" "WHY ARE YOU GOING 50 IN THE PASSING LANE?" "STOP THE CAR - I CAN'T TAKE THIS."

You forgot "LET ME DRIVE!" :D

-Kevin

[nrc]

I think they should pop those little stop thingies they have @ car rental lots and some parking lots. That'll fix the red light running. :gomer: Big thing around here are red light cameras. They can't get them installed soon enough on a couple of intersection I frequent. :irked:

-Kevin

You'll think twice when someone in front of you does an all out panic stop to avoid going through a yellow light. Or when you get a ticket because someone behind you was following so close that you didn't dare stop.

Red light cameras are a revenue source, not a safety measure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

[Methanolandbrats]

How about a simple transponder in the traffic lights and a receiver in the car radio. If you are in the intersection more than two seconds after the light turned red (enough of a safety margin), the car will play an endless loop of Celin Deon and Barry Manilow music for 10 minutes. Make the feature tamper proof and intersection safety would increase overnight :thumbup:

[Sean Malone]

It could be a geographic anomaly. Every single intersection accident that I've witnessed here in FL due to running a red light had a senior citizen behind the wheel. And I'm not talking my mom or dad (both over 65 but very active and healthy mentally and physically), I'm talking little blue haired ladies/gents in their 80's that can barely see over the steering wheel.

I agree with nrc, I don't want the control taken away. I would hate to be forced to a speed limit or having a computer control my speed in non emergency situations. Plus, would we ever really trust a computer?
It just seems so simple to incorporate simple audio alerts for things like red lights. Emergency vehicles can communicate with signals in real time so I'm assuming the two way interface is probably already there.

[dando]

You'll think twice when someone in front of you does an all out panic stop to avoid going through a yellow light. Or when you get a ticket because someone behind you was following so close that you didn't dare stop.

Red light cameras are a revenue source, not a safety measure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

That's why I put a :gomer: after my first comment, yo. :)

The intent is for the red-light cameras to increase safety, with additional revenue as a byproduct. Mayor Coleman sez so, yo. :gomer: What the Post study didn't detail was how much the volume of traffic increased or decreased during the periods studied. I would expect that it likely increased, but by a factor less than the increase in accidents. Also, a variety of other factors, like weather, can also affect how many accidents occur. Lastly, as was noted there is no measurement for the severity of accidents due to a lack of data. A key premise of the cameras is to reduce the occurence of severe accidents. I've observed a reduced number or red lights run @ a nearby intersection with a camera I frequent, but I only frequent a few times a week for just a few minutes each time.

Now if the Post could do a study on roundabouts and safety vs. cost compared to intersections with lights. Dublin's engineer has a hard on for the damn things, and they've install ~10 of the damn things the past several years. :mad:

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

You'll think twice when someone in front of you does an all out panic stop to avoid going through a yellow light. Or when you get a ticket because someone behind you was following so close that you didn't dare stop.

Red light cameras are a revenue source, not a safety measure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html

It seems like they have also sped up the yellow to red transition. I don't understand why they don't make that proportionate to the speed cars are going. Then add a couple seconds and nail anyone who runs a red light. It seems many people see the light going from green to yellow as a reason to speed up, not slow down.

[Insomniac]

How about a simple transponder in the traffic lights and a receiver in the car radio.

That won't work because of the proximity of all the lights. Your cart wouldn't be able to isolate that the red light was the signal you were approaching.

[Insomniac]

It just seems so simple to incorporate simple audio alerts for things like red lights. Emergency vehicles can communicate with signals in real time so I'm assuming the two way interface is probably already there.

I believe that is an optical interface, and only one-way.

[eiregosod]

I'll ask captain spock on how to overcome the dificulties. :tony:

[cameraman]

People run red lights here constantly. The light turns red and 3 or 4 cars will then proceed to run the red and turn left. If you are ever driving in Salt Lake you should plan on people making left turns on red at every intersection. I want the cameras, hell they could cancel my property taxes after about two weeks of nailing a couple hundred cars per traffic light per day...

[Andrew Longman]

It seems many people see the light going from green to yellow as a reason to speed up, not slow down.

It isn't? Stay out of Jersey then.

On topic, I think a transmitter in the light, that can be picked up by the car, that triggers and audio alarm telling the driver he/she is approaching a red light, would dramatically reduce the inadvertant running of red lights. Especially at night on four lane surface roads lined with strip malls, etc, it is often hard to pick out the light from all the other lights.

The same transmitter could also have a motion sensor that tells cars approaching a green light if someone is approaching the intersection too fast to stop for the red. That could warn you not to enter the intersection.

[dando]

It seems many people see the light going from green to yellow as a reason to speed up, not slow down.

<starman>

Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast.
</starman>

:gomer:

-Kevin

[Indy]

I know someone permanently brain damaged after such a T-bone accident. I drive all day long, and I see it all the time. I always give them a good honk and a nice sign-language compliment. :gomer:

But, I was taught in driver's ed. that when the light turns yellow two cars get to turn left. The problem, of course, nowadays, is that the two cars turning left have to wait on the three cars running the red at high speed. I am not sure how to avoid this without having left turn signals at every intersection.

[trish]

People routinely run the red at a left turn signal right in front of the police station here. In fact a city bus even did it one day.

[mapguy]

How about a simple transponder in the traffic lights and a receiver in the car radio. If you are in the intersection more than two seconds after the light turned red (enough of a safety margin), the car will play an endless loop of Celin Deon and Barry Manilow music for 10 minutes. Make the feature tamper proof and intersection safety would increase overnight :thumbup:

If this doesn't work. Nothing will.

[JLMannin]

Here in Indy, I have my foot over the brake at every intersection with a green light.

There are many, many people who think the traffic lights serve a mere advisory role.

[Elmo T]

I believe that is an optical interface, and only one-way.

Correct.

The responding emergency vehicle has a strobe light sequenced for the receiver on the traffic light. The system sees the strobe light and cycles to light to give the emergency vehicle the green light. While it does improve response time, the actual purpose is to prevent accidents. The emergency vehicle will not have to cross through a red signal.

FWIW, Blaupunkt had a system years back where an approaching emergency vehicle would activate a system in the car and warn the driver with an audible and visual signal.

As for vehicle safety - or fire safety or any other safety matter - people are willing to accept the risk. There are acceptable losses.

Over 43,000 people were killed in auto accidents in 2005. We accept that. Then there are times we don't accept it and things change. Between 1990 and 2003, the number of child deaths caused by air bags was 143. And there has been a push for smarter air bags and public education on the problem. It was high profile, received a great deal of media attention (remember Firestone tires - 119 deaths and things changed). Yet we have tens of thousands of traffic deaths and we accept it. If 3 people are killed in a tornado, it makes CNN. 3 people killed in a fire in West Philly barely makes the TV news.

As I type this, the new season of The Wire keeps coming to mind.

I am not a being callous - it is just the reality of what we are willing to accept or not.

[Indy]

Right Elmo. A new 9/11 every month, but it is good for business, so, hey, no big deal.

[Insomniac]

FWIW, Blaupunkt had a system years back where an approaching emergency vehicle would activate a system in the car and warn the driver with an audible and visual signal.

I think most radar/laser detectors also do this as well.

[Insomniac]

As for vehicle safety - or fire safety or any other safety matter - people are willing to accept the risk. There are acceptable losses.

Over 43,000 people were killed in auto accidents in 2005. We accept that. Then there are times we don't accept it and things change. Between 1990 and 2003, the number of child deaths caused by air bags was 143. And there has been a push for smarter air bags and public education on the problem. It was high profile, received a great deal of media attention (remember Firestone tires - 119 deaths and things changed). Yet we have tens of thousands of traffic deaths and we accept it. If 3 people are killed in a tornado, it makes CNN. 3 people killed in a fire in West Philly barely makes the TV news.

As I type this, the new season of The Wire keeps coming to mind.

I am not a being callous - it is just the reality of what we are willing to accept or not.

I don't know if it is acceptable risk. I think you have to look at the cause. You isolated 143 deaths that are part of the ~40k/yr in auto accidents. Part of it may've been outrage, but airbags were killing children. It is something that could be fixed. You have to look at how all those people died to really say nothing is being done without outrage.

Deaths under rare circumstances always bring in more news coverage.

[ChampcarShark]

I think most radar/laser detectors also do this as well.

And some of the newest GPS units. Tell you about traffic conditions, so I believe the technology is here.

OTOH, having lights synchronized solves lots of accidents.

Amazingly, here in the border it is the Mexican city that has most light intersections synchronized and that moves traffic more smoothly. Then again if you hit a red light you have to wait a little longer.

[Elmo T]

You isolated 143 deaths that are part of the ~40k/yr in auto accidents. Part of it may've been outrage, but airbags were killing children

Deaths under rare circumstances always bring in more news coverage.

That was the point I was trying to make. We accept that many folks will die on the road, but we won't accept the deaths of 143 children over 10+ years. We didn't accept the deaths related to the tires and worked to change it. Not right or wrong, just what society finds acceptable. If we were outraged over the motor vehicle deaths, there would be a push to mitigate that problem - through technology and education.

As another example, the United State’s mortality rate from fires ranks fourth among the 25 developed countries with numbers 2.5 times greater than many European countries. Why? Our attitude towards fire and the numbers are "acceptable".

As for TV - does the news feed out appetite for the ugly or are we just buying what the TV news is selling?

The Wire - ""Americans Are Stupid; People Will Pretty Much Believe What We're Told"

[Insomniac]

That was the point I was trying to make. We accept that many folks will die on the road, but we won't accept the deaths of 143 children over 10+ years. We didn't accept the deaths related to the tires and worked to change it. Not right or wrong, just what society finds acceptable. If we were outraged over the motor vehicle deaths, there would be a push to mitigate that problem - through technology and education.

As another example, the United State’s mortality rate from fires ranks fourth among the 25 developed countries with numbers 2.5 times greater than many European countries. Why? Our attitude towards fire and the numbers are "acceptable".

As for TV - does the news feed out appetite for the ugly or are we just buying what the TV news is selling?

The Wire - ""Americans Are Stupid; People Will Pretty Much Believe What We're Told"

My point is that you really need to break down what are the causes of all those deaths. It's not one thing that can be fixed (although, I'd venture many were preventable). You can't stop 40k deaths a year with one fix. The number of fatal accidents have remained relatively flat since 1994 (close to $40k), but I bet the number of vehicles on the roads has increased by a much higher percentage. Pin-point a specific cause and then work to fix it.

For example, nearly 40% of deaths are directly traced to alcohol. That isn't really a car safety issue. What can be done to reduce that number? Prohibition didn't work very well. Maybe, actual enforcement and harsher penalties for DUI. You ask anyone if that is acceptable and they will all say no. But what is the solution?

I would need more information on the fires. Like causes and the actual numbers to really comment. But the same ideas apply.

I'd say since news is now a ratings business, they are showing what the majority of people who watch those newscasts are looking for. They have a small window, and with so many auto accidents, most just aren't interested. There are so many deaths, for so many reasons everyday, that it's not noteworthy to the general public. In places where there are so many murders, those aren't even reported on much.

[Elmo T]

Pin-point a specific cause and then work to fix it.

You ask anyone if that is acceptable and they will all say no. But what is the solution?



Gotcha.

I think regardless of the safety issue, WE are the problem. "Guns don't kill people..." etc. Engineer people out of the equation, and thinks would probably improve. It sounds like that is what some of the car manufacturers now doing.

Which brings us back to the start of this thread. Will engineering help us be safer in our cars?

It goes back to the basic 3 E's: Education, Engineering, and Enforcement. The most effective, albeit the most difficult, is to change the behavior.

[Insomniac]

Gotcha.

I think regardless of the safety issue, WE are the problem. "Guns don't kill people..." etc. Engineer people out of the equation, and thinks would probably improve. It sounds like that is what some of the car manufacturers now doing.

Which brings us back to the start of this thread. Will engineering help us be safer in our cars?

It goes back to the basic 3 E's: Education, Engineering, and Enforcement. The most effective, albeit the most difficult, is to change the behavior.

I think it can. I said earlier that Volvo was introducing some driving aids like lane change detection and drowsiness. Hopefully things like that would promote safer driving. Then maybe someday we will all be "driving" around like they did in I, Robot. :)

[Andrew Longman]

For example, nearly 40% of deaths are directly traced to alcohol.

I won't make any apologies for drunk drivers but you are quoting a much misunderstood statisitc pushed hard by MADD.

40% of auto fatalities are "alcohol related".

That means if you are driving sober down the street and a drunk pedestrian steps in from of your car, it is considered an alcohol related death.

Same as if you had half a glass of wine two hours ago and the pedestrian was sober.

Same as if a drunk driver with a .16 is stopped at traffic light and gets rear ended by a semi.

I'm not saying that these sort of examples make up the bulk of alcohol related deaths, but the way they collect the statistics there is no way to tell. And then they use the statistics to lobby Congress to withhold highway dollars unless states reduce threshholds to .08.

In fact there is nothing in the statistics to suggest the .02 reduction would have any effect on reducing deaths. Indeed, traffic deaths haven't moved down in the years since the lower level was adopted. It was bad science, used for political effect that busted a great many people who would have been considered innocent in years prior.

However, there are studies that show that repeat offenders and those with very high BAL are much more likely to kill or be killed in a traffic accident. Being more agressive there might have an impact on deaths.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the .08 is necessarily a bad thing, just the justifications for it. If, as a society we want to say any amount of alcohol is incompatible/inappropriate with driving that's fine. Just be clear why we think so.

[Elmo T]

I was thinking it would be more like The Jetsons.

Then again, given the driving ability of some folks (Dale in Wickerbill's thread), we should stick to driving in two dimensions, not 3.

[Indy]

There is no question that MADD has become, in effect, a neo-prohibitionist movement. Just as it has finally become apparent to so many people that the "war on drugs" has produced nothing but more misery, these new crusaders are seeking to criminalize even more regular Americans.

[nrc]

Just as it has finally become apparent to so many people that the "war on drugs" has produced nothing but more misery,..

What has Amy Whinehouse got to do with it?


Oh, I'm sorry, you said war on drugs. :gomer:

[Insomniac]

I won't make any apologies for drunk drivers but you are quoting a much misunderstood statisitc pushed hard by MADD.

40% of auto fatalities are "alcohol related".

That means if you are driving sober down the street and a drunk pedestrian steps in from of your car, it is considered an alcohol related death.

Same as if you had half a glass of wine two hours ago and the pedestrian was sober.

Same as if a drunk driver with a .16 is stopped at traffic light and gets rear ended by a semi.

I'm not saying that these sort of examples make up the bulk of alcohol related deaths, but the way they collect the statistics there is no way to tell. And then they use the statistics to lobby Congress to withhold highway dollars unless states reduce threshholds to .08.

In fact there is nothing in the statistics to suggest the .02 reduction would have any effect on reducing deaths. Indeed, traffic deaths haven't moved down in the years since the lower level was adopted. It was bad science, used for political effect that busted a great many people who would have been considered innocent in years prior.

However, there are studies that show that repeat offenders and those with very high BAL are much more likely to kill or be killed in a traffic accident. Being more agressive there might have an impact on deaths.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the .08 is necessarily a bad thing, just the justifications for it. If, as a society we want to say any amount of alcohol is incompatible/inappropriate with driving that's fine. Just be clear why we think so.

I just got the number from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm. My main thing is it's crazy that the laws for many states have stiff fine/license suspension/jail, yet you just don't see it enforced in the sense that people get off much lighter.

When I took my driving test in WV, we were required to know the consequences (fines/suspensions/revocation/jail) for each incident of DUI/DWI before we could take the test. But, I'd bet that was the maximum, and it was rarely what people were hit with. It seemed like a slap on the wrist until you killed someone and were charged with vehicular manslaughter.

[Insomniac]

There is no question that MADD has become, in effect, a neo-prohibitionist movement. Just as it has finally become apparent to so many people that the "war on drugs" has produced nothing but more misery, these new crusaders are seeking to criminalize even more regular Americans.

You should be able to drink all you want, but it should most certainly be criminal to then endanger other people with your recklessness. (Not you, but regular Americans as a whole)

[grungex]

There is no question that MADD has become, in effect, a neo-prohibitionist movement. Just as it has finally become apparent to so many people that the "war on drugs" has produced nothing but more misery, these new crusaders are seeking to criminalize even more regular Americans.

Just like the red-light cameras, .08 is almost all about increasing revenues, and little to do with getting the truly dangerous drunks off the road.

Safety cretins love to credit these types of laws (along with speed enforcement) with reductions in traffic deaths and injuries, while conveniently ignoring just how much safer modern automobiles are compared to 20 or even 10 years ago.

[cameraman]

Just like the red-light cameras

Safety cretins love to credit these types of laws

Screw safety - I want to jack up the *******s who constantly run red lights around here.