In the mid-1980s the car company Audi had a problem. Some customers were reporting a mysterious defect in the Audi 5000. Their cars, they said, were uncontrollably surging forward. There had been accidents. Deaths.
Audi denied the cars were the issue, and so the U.S. government undertook an enormous study of sudden acceleration.
Joan Claybrook, the former head of the advocacy group Public Citizen, says that when this report on sudden acceleration finally came out in 1989, its conclusions were unwavering: The problem was driver error. People, not cars, were to blame.
And so for 30 years, Claybrook says, whenever potential cases of sudden acceleration came up they were mostly — and in her view tragically — dismissed. It was just assumed that the person had panicked and pressed the wrong pedal.
Then came Mark Saylor.
Mark Saylor was an off-duty police officer who experienced a deadly episode of sudden acceleration while driving north on Highway 125 in California with his wife, child and brother-in-law. The brother-in-law called 911 and reported their situation. The call was recorded and, after Saylor and his family were killed, released to the public.
All across America, people listened to this call of Saylor and his family speeding to their deaths and instantly changed their view of driver error. Saylor was clearly calm enough to make a phone call and explain his problem.
And so the narrative changed overnight: Now cars, not people, were to blame. That was the story in hearing rooms of Congress, on the 24-hour cable networks and the headline in the papers.
But some experts say that though there may in fact be real defects in Toyotas and other cars, it's likely that at least some of the episodes of sudden acceleration that have made the news recently are the product of human error.
According to the research, they say, human beings have a long history of pushing the wrong pedal.
Source
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Sen. Harry Reid's wife, daughter hurt in car accident
Reporting from Washington — The wife and daughter of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were seriously injured in a car wreck Thursday when their vehicle was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer on a Washington-area interstate, a spokesman said.
Landra Reid and her adult daughter, Lana Reid Barringer, were hospitalized with what doctors described as non-life-threatening injuries, according to a statement from Jon Summers, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat.
Landra Reid, 69, suffered the more serious injuries, including a broken back, neck and nose. Lana Reid Barringer, 48, suffered a neck injury and facial lacerations. Both were conscious, and neither had lost feeling in their extremities, the statement said. The daughter was released from the hospital Thursday night, the Associated Press reported.
Reid was told of the accident while participating in a conference call with reporters from rural Nevada, Summers said. He immediately went to the hospital, but later returned to the Capitol to continue negotiations on the healthcare bill.
"Sen. Reid has been to the hospital and appreciates the support he and his family are receiving from Nevadans and his colleagues in the Senate," the statement said. Reid returned to the hospital Thursday night.
Harry Reid, 70, and Landra Reid were high school sweethearts and have been married since 1959. They have five grown children, including son Rory Reid, who is running for the Democratic nomination for governor in Nevada.
The four-vehicle chain-reaction crash occurred on Interstate 95 in Fairfax County about 1 p.m., according to a news release from the Virginia State Police. Lana Reid Barringer, a mother of three from McLean, Va., was driving a Honda Odyssey van, with her mother as a passenger, when they were rear-ended by the trailer carrying rolls of plastic, police said. The van crashed into a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which in turn struck a Chevrolet Cobalt.
Everyone involved was wearing seat belts, police said. Two others were taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
The driver of the tractor-trailer, who was unhurt, was identified by state police as Alan W. Snader, 59, of Ohio. He was charged with reckless driving.
Landra Reid has lived through danger before. In 1981, when her husband was a Nevada gaming commissioner and the mob was a presence in Las Vegas, she noticed something wrong with the family station wagon, she has said. She called an associate of her husband, who called police. The car had been rigged with a bomb, police said.
Source
Landra Reid and her adult daughter, Lana Reid Barringer, were hospitalized with what doctors described as non-life-threatening injuries, according to a statement from Jon Summers, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat.
Landra Reid, 69, suffered the more serious injuries, including a broken back, neck and nose. Lana Reid Barringer, 48, suffered a neck injury and facial lacerations. Both were conscious, and neither had lost feeling in their extremities, the statement said. The daughter was released from the hospital Thursday night, the Associated Press reported.
Reid was told of the accident while participating in a conference call with reporters from rural Nevada, Summers said. He immediately went to the hospital, but later returned to the Capitol to continue negotiations on the healthcare bill.
"Sen. Reid has been to the hospital and appreciates the support he and his family are receiving from Nevadans and his colleagues in the Senate," the statement said. Reid returned to the hospital Thursday night.
Harry Reid, 70, and Landra Reid were high school sweethearts and have been married since 1959. They have five grown children, including son Rory Reid, who is running for the Democratic nomination for governor in Nevada.
The four-vehicle chain-reaction crash occurred on Interstate 95 in Fairfax County about 1 p.m., according to a news release from the Virginia State Police. Lana Reid Barringer, a mother of three from McLean, Va., was driving a Honda Odyssey van, with her mother as a passenger, when they were rear-ended by the trailer carrying rolls of plastic, police said. The van crashed into a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which in turn struck a Chevrolet Cobalt.
Everyone involved was wearing seat belts, police said. Two others were taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
The driver of the tractor-trailer, who was unhurt, was identified by state police as Alan W. Snader, 59, of Ohio. He was charged with reckless driving.
Landra Reid has lived through danger before. In 1981, when her husband was a Nevada gaming commissioner and the mob was a presence in Las Vegas, she noticed something wrong with the family station wagon, she has said. She called an associate of her husband, who called police. The car had been rigged with a bomb, police said.
Source
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Two die in weekend car accident
LUBBOCK, TX (KCBD)- Two people are dead following an accident in north Lubbock over the weekend.
Police say that 53-year-old Virginia Lepe made a U- turn in the 2300 block of Clovis Road around 1 a.m. Sunday.
That is when her car was struck by a second car, Lepe and her passenger, 67-year-old Antonio Loredo were taken to University Medical Center where they later died.
The driver of the second car, 33-year-old Josephine Hernandez suffered moderate injuries.
Source
Police say that 53-year-old Virginia Lepe made a U- turn in the 2300 block of Clovis Road around 1 a.m. Sunday.
That is when her car was struck by a second car, Lepe and her passenger, 67-year-old Antonio Loredo were taken to University Medical Center where they later died.
The driver of the second car, 33-year-old Josephine Hernandez suffered moderate injuries.
Source
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Virginia Sinkhole Swallows Car
Talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place. A Virginia driver found herself sucked into a sinkhole Monday morning. It happened just off U.S. Highway 29 North - that's southwest of Lynchburg.
CBS 6 viewer Leonard Harville captured these images of the car and the Gretna Volunteer Fire and Rescue team in action.
Harville says the driver was stuck inside her green mini-van until crews arrived her injures are not believed to be life-threatening.
He says the ditch was approximately 20 feet deep and had washed the roadway out and other drivers had complained about the potential problem.
Source
CBS 6 viewer Leonard Harville captured these images of the car and the Gretna Volunteer Fire and Rescue team in action.
Harville says the driver was stuck inside her green mini-van until crews arrived her injures are not believed to be life-threatening.
He says the ditch was approximately 20 feet deep and had washed the roadway out and other drivers had complained about the potential problem.
Source
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Banning mobile phones in cars don’t reduce car accidents
We are often reminded that when we drive, don’t text. If we text, don’t drive. The campaign drew a lot of support, and I am not surprised. How can you text and drive at the same time? If you know how to drive a car, you know that you need to put your 100% attention to the road or you endanger your own life or someone else’s life.
But a recent study released by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) study contradicts everything. The study shows that despite the ban, there is no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect. Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in 4 US jurisdictions before and after such bans, the researchers find steady claim rates compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans.
HLDI researchers calculated monthly collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years (a vehicle year is 1 car insured for 1 year, 2 insured for 6 months each, etc.) for vehicles up to 3 years old during the months immediately before and after hand-held phone use was banned while driving in New York (Nov. 2001), the District of Columbia (July 2004), Connecticut (Oct. 2005), and California (July 2008). Comparable data were collected for nearby jurisdictions without such bans. This method controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans — changes in the number of miles driven due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc.
Month-to-month fluctuations in rates of collision claims in jurisdictions with bans didn’t change from before to after the laws were enacted. Nor did the patterns change in comparison with trends in jurisdictions that didn’t have such laws.
“The laws aren’t reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk,” says Adrian Lund, president of both the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and HLDI. For example, an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that relies on driver phone records found a 4-fold increase in the risk of injury crashes. A study in Canada found a 4-fold increase in the risk of crashes involving property damage. Separate surveys of driver behavior before and after hand-held phone use bans show reductions in the use of such phones while driving.
The HLDI database doesn’t identify drivers using cellphones when their crashes occur. However, reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected. In New York the HLDI researchers did find a decrease in collision claim frequencies, relative to comparison states, but this decreasing trend began well before the state’s ban on hand-held phoning while driving and actually paused briefly when the ban took effect. Trends in the District of Columbia, Connecticut, and California didn’t change.
HLDI added that the new findings don’t match what they already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving. If crash risk increases with phone use and fewer drivers use phones where it’s illegal to do so, they would expect to see a decrease in crashes. But they aren’t seeing it. Nor do they see collision claim increases before the phone bans took effect. This is surprising, too, given what HLDI know about the growing use of cellphones and the risk of phoning while driving. The company is currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch.”
HLDI researchers compared the District of Columbia’s collision claim frequency trend not only with statewide trends in Virginia and Maryland but also with the trend in the nearby city of Baltimore. Again, the finding is no difference in the pattern of collision claims. Nor were any differences apparent when the researchers applied a time-based regression model to claims data for each of the study and comparison jurisdictions.
Some factors mentioned that might be eroding the effects of hand-held phone bans on crashes - One is that drivers in jurisdictions with such bans may be switching to hands-free phones because no US state currently bans all drivers from using such phones. In this case crashes wouldn’t go down because the risk is about the same, regardless of whether the phones are hand-held or hands-free.
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia do prohibit beginning drivers from using any type of phone, including hands-free, but such laws are difficult to enforce. This was the finding in North Carolina, where teenage drivers didn’t curtail phone use in response to a ban, in part because they didn’t think the law was being enforced.
Source
But a recent study released by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) study contradicts everything. The study shows that despite the ban, there is no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect. Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in 4 US jurisdictions before and after such bans, the researchers find steady claim rates compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans.
HLDI researchers calculated monthly collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years (a vehicle year is 1 car insured for 1 year, 2 insured for 6 months each, etc.) for vehicles up to 3 years old during the months immediately before and after hand-held phone use was banned while driving in New York (Nov. 2001), the District of Columbia (July 2004), Connecticut (Oct. 2005), and California (July 2008). Comparable data were collected for nearby jurisdictions without such bans. This method controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans — changes in the number of miles driven due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc.
Month-to-month fluctuations in rates of collision claims in jurisdictions with bans didn’t change from before to after the laws were enacted. Nor did the patterns change in comparison with trends in jurisdictions that didn’t have such laws.
“The laws aren’t reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk,” says Adrian Lund, president of both the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and HLDI. For example, an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study that relies on driver phone records found a 4-fold increase in the risk of injury crashes. A study in Canada found a 4-fold increase in the risk of crashes involving property damage. Separate surveys of driver behavior before and after hand-held phone use bans show reductions in the use of such phones while driving.
The HLDI database doesn’t identify drivers using cellphones when their crashes occur. However, reductions in observed phone use following bans are so substantial and estimated effects of phone use on crash risk are so large that reductions in aggregate crashes would be expected. In New York the HLDI researchers did find a decrease in collision claim frequencies, relative to comparison states, but this decreasing trend began well before the state’s ban on hand-held phoning while driving and actually paused briefly when the ban took effect. Trends in the District of Columbia, Connecticut, and California didn’t change.
HLDI added that the new findings don’t match what they already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving. If crash risk increases with phone use and fewer drivers use phones where it’s illegal to do so, they would expect to see a decrease in crashes. But they aren’t seeing it. Nor do they see collision claim increases before the phone bans took effect. This is surprising, too, given what HLDI know about the growing use of cellphones and the risk of phoning while driving. The company is currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch.”
HLDI researchers compared the District of Columbia’s collision claim frequency trend not only with statewide trends in Virginia and Maryland but also with the trend in the nearby city of Baltimore. Again, the finding is no difference in the pattern of collision claims. Nor were any differences apparent when the researchers applied a time-based regression model to claims data for each of the study and comparison jurisdictions.
Some factors mentioned that might be eroding the effects of hand-held phone bans on crashes - One is that drivers in jurisdictions with such bans may be switching to hands-free phones because no US state currently bans all drivers from using such phones. In this case crashes wouldn’t go down because the risk is about the same, regardless of whether the phones are hand-held or hands-free.
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia do prohibit beginning drivers from using any type of phone, including hands-free, but such laws are difficult to enforce. This was the finding in North Carolina, where teenage drivers didn’t curtail phone use in response to a ban, in part because they didn’t think the law was being enforced.
Source
Monday, March 15, 2010
West Virginia traffic fatality leads to DUI charge
An Ohio driver on the West Virginia Turnpike has been charged with DUI involving death following a Sunday accident.
32-year-old Joseph Scott Adkins was charged late Sunday night to early Monday morning. No bond has been set as of today. Officers say the accident occurred on I-&& southbound near the I-64 split. Adkins allegedly rear ended a tractor trailer, though the exact cause of the accident is not reported yet. A passenger traveling in Adkin's car, 43-year-old Terry Mays, died at the scene of the accident.
The tractor trailer driver and other passengers on the roadway were uninjured. Adkins was taken to the hospital to be treated for injuries prior to being booked in the jail. Reports do not indicate what substance Adkins had ingested, meaning he could have been under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs. Further investigation will reveal the exact substance as well as the circumstances that lead to the crash.
Source
32-year-old Joseph Scott Adkins was charged late Sunday night to early Monday morning. No bond has been set as of today. Officers say the accident occurred on I-&& southbound near the I-64 split. Adkins allegedly rear ended a tractor trailer, though the exact cause of the accident is not reported yet. A passenger traveling in Adkin's car, 43-year-old Terry Mays, died at the scene of the accident.
The tractor trailer driver and other passengers on the roadway were uninjured. Adkins was taken to the hospital to be treated for injuries prior to being booked in the jail. Reports do not indicate what substance Adkins had ingested, meaning he could have been under the influence of alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs. Further investigation will reveal the exact substance as well as the circumstances that lead to the crash.
Source
Sunday, February 28, 2010
What's Next After Bus Accident?
Parents still have questions after a bus accident on Indian Trail Road Monday morning.
According to Rockingham County Public Schools, the school bus carrying 63 students was traveling south on Indian Trail Road towards Montevideo Middle School as a car was traveling north.
The road is fairly narrow, and where the two vehicles were passing was more narrow than most places because of a telephone pole close to the road.
"In an effort to make room for the car, the bus, while going very slowly, clipped its side mirror on the telephone pole causing the mirror to crash into the school bus door and shatter the glass," explains Jim Slye, the Transportation Director for Rockingham County Public Schools.
This is the second accident on Indian Trail this school year.
In a similar setup during the first couple weeks of school, a bus driver veered off the road into a tree on a narrow part of Indian Trail Road to avoid hitting an oncoming truck.
After the first accident, RCPS asked the Virginia Department of Transportation to help out and now it's asking again.
"We are concerned, because I feel like, the last time we were called, we reacted and fortunately the land owners allowed us to cut the tree, because the tree wasn't on our property," says Don Komara, the Resident Engineer with VDOT.
While VDOT works from its end, RCPS will work to see what changes if any it can make to the route.
"We'll find out if there is a need to be on this road at all. If there isn't then you know, we'll make a change. There may not be anything we can do. We may have to stay on that road, but if there is anyway to keep from that road, we will," says Slye.
"In this case, we're going to look at the pole, the utility pole. We're going to contact them to see if it is somewhere in their maintenance to move it back and see how amenable they are to that. Then we'll have to contact the property owner because you just can't move the pole back without asking permission," says Komara.
Source
According to Rockingham County Public Schools, the school bus carrying 63 students was traveling south on Indian Trail Road towards Montevideo Middle School as a car was traveling north.
The road is fairly narrow, and where the two vehicles were passing was more narrow than most places because of a telephone pole close to the road.
"In an effort to make room for the car, the bus, while going very slowly, clipped its side mirror on the telephone pole causing the mirror to crash into the school bus door and shatter the glass," explains Jim Slye, the Transportation Director for Rockingham County Public Schools.
This is the second accident on Indian Trail this school year.
In a similar setup during the first couple weeks of school, a bus driver veered off the road into a tree on a narrow part of Indian Trail Road to avoid hitting an oncoming truck.
After the first accident, RCPS asked the Virginia Department of Transportation to help out and now it's asking again.
"We are concerned, because I feel like, the last time we were called, we reacted and fortunately the land owners allowed us to cut the tree, because the tree wasn't on our property," says Don Komara, the Resident Engineer with VDOT.
While VDOT works from its end, RCPS will work to see what changes if any it can make to the route.
"We'll find out if there is a need to be on this road at all. If there isn't then you know, we'll make a change. There may not be anything we can do. We may have to stay on that road, but if there is anyway to keep from that road, we will," says Slye.
"In this case, we're going to look at the pole, the utility pole. We're going to contact them to see if it is somewhere in their maintenance to move it back and see how amenable they are to that. Then we'll have to contact the property owner because you just can't move the pole back without asking permission," says Komara.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)