crashes into disabled or stopped vehicles -...

Crashes Into Disabled or Stopped Vehicles:

An Under-Estimated Danger in Today’s Distracted World

© St. Christopher Project – All Rights Reserved –www.crashflasher.com 2

IntroductionRoadside crashes account for 35% of the fatalities on the nation’s highways, according to the NCHRP 17-43 Long-Term Roadside Crash Data Collection Program.1 Keeping vehicles on the roadway and minimizing the consequences of leaving the road are Goals 15 and 16 of The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’s (AASHTO) Strategic Highway Safety Plan, written originally in 1997 and updated in 2004, which identified 22 goals to pursue in order to significantly reduce highway crash fatalities.2

Of all the possible consequences of a vehicle leaving the road, two are of particular interest for this white paper: 1) A crash into a vehicle that is stopped or disabled along the roadside, and 2) a crash into people who are with the vehicle, either its occupants who may have exited it to handle a problem such as a flat tire or fender-bender or a “Good Samaritan” who may have stopped to help.

Roadside crashes are particularly deadly since the physics of a moving vehicle crashing into a stationary vehicle and/or individuals nearby is especially violent.2 In fact, no more than 0.7% of all reported crashes are fatal, but nearly 1.3% of all roadside crashes are fatal.3

A similar and often severe type of crash occurs when a moving vehicle hits a stopped or disabled vehicle within the roadway. This type of crash may occur for many reasons, such as when traffic is stopped because of a previous crash, or when a vehicle has become disabled in the roadway and its occupants are dealing with the emergency.

Reasons why an oncoming driver does not comprehend the need to act quickly and correctly to avoid the emergency situation on the shoulder or in the roadway may be many and varied. Recognition of an emergency situation requires that the driver of an approaching vehicle 1) see the situation, 2) understand the need to take action to prevent a crash and 3) choose an action that avoids a crash. To summarize, the oncoming driver must 1) see 2) comprehend, and 3) act.

One reason for failing to see and to comprehend the disabled- or stopped-vehicle emergency situation that has received significant attention lately is distracted driving. Numerous reports in the news media have detailed the distractive effect of cell phone use and the possible consequences of using hand-held devices while driving. In December 2011, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that states ban all non-driving use of technology.4 Many states and municipalities have enacted laws to outlaw the use of hand-held devices while driving in an effort to decrease motor vehicle crashes.

http://www.crashflasher.com


Of interest here are 1) the prevalence of distracted driving due to inattention other than the obvious and well-researched effect of the use of technology and 2) roadside crashes into disabled or stationary vehicles.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, nearly 2,000 people are killed each year in highway shoulder accidents.5 Roadside crashes are often very severe for the person(s) who are with the stationary vehicle.

One example reported to Indiana State Police in September of 2011 resulted in the death of a Good Samaritan who had stopped to help a motorist changing a tire. Both vehicles were off the roadway and hazard lights were turned on. Still a semi-truck drove onto the shoulder and hit the Good Samaritan’s vehicle killing the passenger. Police said they did not know why the semi-truck drove to the right of the fog line and caused this crash.6

Another accident report from January 23, 2012 describes the crash of a car carrying two people striking a van in the rear as it was parked on the shoulder with hazard lights on. Both individuals in the car were killed. Fourteen people in the van were injured, with a few requiring treatment at a hospital. Saskatoon police are not sure why the car left the roadway.7

In October 2011 three people were killed while working on a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of Indiana State Road 58 when a dump truck left the roadway and struck them. The owner of the vehicle and a relative were pronounced dead on the scene as was a Good Samaritan who had shown up with a can of gas for the van. Police are unsure why the driver of the truck left the roadway.8

In this white paper, we will address the driver’s need to be alerted to the potential emergency ahead and how better visibility of the disabled or stopped vehicle can improve the oncoming driver’s ability to choose an action that will decrease the likelihood of a crash.

{ {


The Severity of Distracted Driving


Scope of the Distracted Driving ProblemIn the Indiana Tri-Level study, driver errors were determined to be a definite or probable cause of, or severity increasing factor in 93% of crashes.9 Human factors were found to be causal in 57% of crashes. Human errors that cause crashes include errors of recognition, decision, and performance. The National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS) reported that about 41% of the critical reasons underlying a crash were attributed to driver recognition errors.10

Many crashes have multi-factorial causation involving driver errors, environmental factors, and vehicle factors.

Recognition errors, where the driver does not properly perceive, comprehend or react to a situation were determined to be causal in 56% of the Tri-Level study crashes.9 These errors included driver inattention, distraction, and improper lookout (driver looked but did not see). Driver inattention was cited in 15% of crashes in the Tri-level study.

Distracted driving plays a role in crashes 80% of the time according to the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.11 The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving study logged 2,000,000 vehicle miles in the Virginia/Metro Washington, DC area and almost 43,000 hours of data for 241 drivers over 12 to 13 months for each vehicle. In that study, 65% of all near-crashes involved the driver looking away from the forward roadway just prior to the incident.12

For incidences involving conflict with a lead vehicle, 100% of the crashes occurred with the lead vehicle was stopped, but most of the time both vehicles were in the same lane.12 In the Tri-Level study, 70% of rear-end crashes involved a stationary lead vehicle and the most common causal factor associated with rear-end crashes is driver inattention to the driving task.9 Data from the 2008 NMVCCS estimated that about 22% of the vehicles ran off the road as the critical pre-crash event.10

Inattention to the forward roadway was a contributing factor in 93% of all lead vehicle crashes (Figure1).12 A majority of the near-crashes had inattention as a contributing factor.

Driver inattention has been identified as a contributing factor in many crashes and has been es-timated to contribute to 25% of police-reported crashes.13 There is a clear relationship between involvement in inattention-related activities and inattention-related crashes or near-crashes, suggesting that drivers who frequently engage in inattentive behaviors are also more likely to be involved in inattention-related crashes or near-crashes.



Figure 1. Percent of lead vehicle events where inattention was listed as a contributing factor.

Types of Distracted DrivingClearly, distraction and inattention are at the root of many rear-end crashes whether they occur in the same lane or have leaving the roadway as a pre-crash event. Four types of driver inattention were defined in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.11

Driver inattention was defined as one of the following:

• Driver engagement in secondary tasks (eating, using hand-held device, grooming, talking to a passenger)

• Driver drowsiness

• Driving-related inattention to the forward roadway

• Non-specific eye glance away from the road in front of them

Driver gazes to the forward roadway do not guarantee that drivers are attentive and processing relevant information. Results of the 100-Car study suggest that drivers are engaging in inattention-related tasks a majority of time they are behind the wheel.11 The prevalence of driving inattention was determined to be a result of engaging in secondary tasks 54% of the time, driving-related inattention 44% of the time, and drowsiness only 4% of the time (Figure 2.). Just 2% of driving inattention was attributed to non-specific eye glance away from the road-way. Drivers often engaged in multiple types of inattention at one time.

0

20

40

60

80

100

crash

perc

ent

near crash

inattentiveattentive

severity



Figure 2. Frequency of events by inattention type.11

A common underlying theme is cognitive distraction regardless of the secondary task involved. Dining and daydreaming are strongly associated with crashes. In the NMVCCS, inattentiveness due to unknown thought focus was the most prevalent factor among the pre-crash non-driving cognitive activities.10 The rate of inattention-related crash and near-crash events decreases dramatically with age, with the rate being as much as four times higher for the 18–20-year-old age group relative to some of the older driver groups.

Driving while drowsy increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 4 to 6 times that of normal driving. Engaging in complex secondary tasks increased risk by 3 times. Moderate secondary tasks doubled the risk of being in a crash or near-crash.

crashnear-crash

freq

uenc

y of

eve

nts

types of inattention

seco

ndar

y ta

sk

driv

ing-

rela

ted

inat

tent

ion

seco

ndar

y ta

sk +

N.S

. eye

gla

nce

fati

gue

non-

spec

ific

eye

glan

ce

seco

ndar

y ta

sk +

D.R

. ina

tten

tion

fati

que

+ N

.S. e

ye g

lanc

e

D.R

. ina

tten

tion

+ fa

tigu

e

seco

ndar

y ta

sk +

D.R

. ina

tten

tion

+ N

.S. e

ye g

lanc

e

seco

ndar

y ta

sk +

fati

gue

+ N

.S. e

ye g

lanc

e

D.R

. ina

tten

tion

+ N

.S. e

ye g

lanc

e 0

30

60

90

120

150



Drowsiness was a contributing factor for 22–24 percent of crashes and near-crashes and secondary-task distraction contributed to over 22 percent of all crashes and near-crashes in the 100-Car study.11

Most drowsiness or fatigue related crashes occur in non-urban areas on roadways with 55-65 mph speed limits. A large majority of these (80%) were single-vehicle crashes or collisions with parked vehicles. Fifty-five percent of drowsiness-related crashes occurred between midnight and 7:59am.14


Likelihood of Off-Road Crashes


Off-Road Crash IncidenceUsing data from the 100-Car study, run-off-road (ROR) events were analyzed to determine contributing factors.15 ROR events were determined to occur most often under poor-visibility and low-friction conditions. Precipitation increased the likelihood of an ROR event 2.5 times that of clear conditions. Similarly, darkness on unlighted roads increased the likelihood of a ROR event 2.5 times that of clear, daylight conditions. Thirty percent of ROR events occurred in curved roadways where forward visibility might be limited.

The most common contributing factor to ROR events was inattention or distraction. Secondary task distraction was involved in 36% of the events and 4% involved driving-related inattention to the roadway. Fatigue or impairment was associated with 11% of ROR events. A failure to maintain lane contributed to 7% of the events.

In a study conducted by the Virginia Transportation Research Council, the incidence of rear end crashes with large vehicles stopped on the roadway or shoulder found that single-vehicle road-way departure crashes into parked vehicles were more severe and the major contributing factor was driver inattention.16


Cost of These Accidents


Cost in Lives and PropertyData suggests that total crash/collision data is under-reported to police such that in urban/ suburban settings the total crash/collision involvement may be over 5 times higher than police-reported crashes.11

Motor vehicle accidents are extremely costly to employers and account for an increasing share of all workplace injuries. Injuries due to motor vehicle accidents are more severe than the average claim, comprising close to 2% of claims but more than 5.5% of losses.17 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39% of occupational fatalities in 2010 involved motor vehicle incidents.18 The frequency of motor vehicle-related workplace injuries has been falling, but at a slower pace than overall. Between 1992 and 2004, motor vehicle-related workplace injury frequency fell by 21%, while overall frequency fell by 54%. As a consequence, the share of nonfatal motor vehicle-relat-ed lost-time injuries has increased from 2.3% in 1992 to 3.9% in 2004, an increase of 69%.17

AAA found that fatal car crashes cost society $6 million each and injury-only crashes cost $126,000 each.19 NHTSA estimates that motor vehicle crashes involving employees costs employers $60 billion annually.20 In addition, fatal crashes cost employers $500,000 per and non-fatal crashes with injury cost $74,000 per. Furthermore, companies whose employees are involved in distracted driving crashes can be held legally and financially liable under the theory of vicarious liability.21


Preventative Measures


Research into Preventative MeasuresIncreasing driver attention is a primary approach to preventing roadside crashes. Existing methods for increasing driver attention include infrastructure warning systems and shoulder rumble strips. Tests of rear-end and road departure in-vehicle-collision warning systems have been shown to reduce crashes. And the use of GPS as the core technology in vehicle-to-vehicle wireless warning systems has been tested and found to be promising.22 However, older vehicles will likely not be retrofitted with such warning systems and will remain on the road. With the average lifetime of a passenger car or truck being 11 years and 10.4 years, respectively, it will take many years for most vehicles to have such warning systems even if they did become standard equipment.23

Eye glance patterns are the most significant predictors of whether a near-crash situation evolves into a crash.11 A signal that effectively draws the following vehicle driver’s eyes to the forward roadway and notifies the driver regarding a hazard could be very helpful in preventing rear-end off-road crashes.


Conclusion & Solutions


Conclusions & SolutionsObviously inattention is a problem in the causation of car crashes on and off the road. Driving a car becomes more or less automatic to us with experience and data shows that most drivers are engaging in inattention-related tasks a majority of time they are behind the wheel. In the case of off-road crashes, the disabled vehicle’s standard equipment hazard lights often are not adequate or are not engaged due to operator error or lack of vehicle power. Something more is necessary to help notify an oncoming driver of a potential roadside hazard.

While in-vehicle collision warning systems are in development and hold promise, there are many older model vehicles that might never be retrofitted with such systems even if a retro-fit kit existed. Until all older model cars are replaced by vehicles with such anti-collision warning systems, some other means of increasing the visibility of a roadside vehicle would be of benefit and could reduce roadside crashes.

Driver education about the problem of inattentiveness and distraction, laws that prohibit the use of technology while driving, and research into in-car collision warning systems are pieces to the prevention puzzle. An additional approach is to develop better hazard warning devices that can help warn a driver of a roadside hazard or increase the driver’s attentiveness to the forward roadway.

An additional means of warning, such as the standard fluorescent triangles or flares can be useful to draw attention to the roadside hazard of a parked or disabled vehicle. However, these are at ground level and may not be as effective as an emergency warning device that is visible several feet above the stopped vehicle.

A possible solution for increasing the visibility of roadside vehicles might be a flashing light that can be deployed several feet higher than the disabled or stopped vehicle to provide a hazard signal above the visual noise of moving cars and their lights. The device could be made to have optimal light brightness, high-visibility flash sequence, 360-degree coverage, and be easily deployable for any vehicle regardless of model year or standard safety features. As an add-on device, such a beacon could prove to be much more valuable than low-to-the-ground flares or signs particularly in low-light or limited visibility conditions. An emergency beacon that helps warn drivers of a forward roadside hazard could be very effective in helping prevent roadside crashes by drawing attention of distracted drivers to the site of the emergency. Because of its portability and ease of deployment, the beacon would be useful immediately and simple to include in the crash-prevention toolkit of all drivers, owners and managers of fleet vehicles.



References1. NCHRP 17-43 Long-Term Roadside Crash Data Collection Program, http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1637

2. AAHSTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. A Comprehensive Plan to Substantially Reduce Vehicle-Related Fatalities and Injuries on the Nation’s Highways. 2005 http://safety.transportation.org/doc/Safety-StrategicHighwaySafetyPlan.pdf

3. The Marginal Impacts of Design, Traffic, Weather and Related Interactions on Roadside Crashes. 2004. http://www.dksassociates.com/admin/paperfile/5%20The%20Marginal%20Impact%20of.pdf

4. NTSB To States: Ban All Driver Use of Mobile Phones. 2011. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/12/13/ntsb-to-states-ban-all-driver-use-of-mobile-phones/

5. USDOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa09028/resources/smartdrivers pamphlet.pdf

6. Good Samaritan killed in I-465 accident. Fox59.com/news/wxin-serious-accident-closes- portions of i465-near southeastern-ave-20110921,0,4625906.column

7. Saskatoon Highway Crash Kills Two, January 23, 2012 http://news.ca.msn.com/local/saskatchewan/saskatoon-highway-crash-kills-2

8. Dump Truck Kills Three In Odon, Indiana, Highway Shoulder Accident. October 17, 2011, http://www.2keller.com/news/dump-truck-kills-three-in-odon-indiana-highway-shoulder- accident-20111017.cfm

9. Indiana Tri Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25300/25340/DOT-HS-034-3-535-73-TAC_001.pdf

10. National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey. July 2008, DOT HS 811 059 http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF

11. The Impact of Driver Inattention On Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1637

http://safety.transportation.org/doc/Safety-StrategicHighwaySafetyPlan.pdf

http://www.dksassociates.com/admin/paperfile/5%20The%20Marginal%20Impact%20of.pdf

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/12/13/ntsb-to-states-ban-all-driver-use-of-mobile-phones/



http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa09028/resources/smartdrivers

http://news.ca.msn.com/local/saskatchewan/saskatoon-highway-crash-kills-2

http://www.2keller.com/news/dump-truck-kills-three-in-odon-indiana-highway-shoulder-accident-20111017.cfm



http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25300/25340/DOT-HS-034-3-535-73-TAC_001.pdf

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF



Naturalistic Driving Study Data. April 2006, DOT HS 810 594

12. Analyses of Rear-End Crashes and Near-Crashes in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study to Support Rear-Signaling Countermeasure Development. October 2007, DOT HS 810 846

13. The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes. 2001 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/distraction.pdf

14. Crashes and Fatalities Related to Driver Drowsiness/Fatigue, November 1994. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

15. Contributing Factors to Run-Off-Road Crashes and Near-Crashes. January 2009, DOT HS 811 079

16. Passenger Vehicle Crashes Into Stationary Large Trucks: Incidence and Possible Countermeasures. 2003 Virginia Transportation Research Council VTRC 03-CR17

17. Traffic Accidents—A Growing Contributor to Workers Compensation Losses. December 2006, https://www.ncci.com/documents/research-traffic-accidents.pdf

18. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2010, http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

19. Crashes vs. Congestion: What’s the cost to society? http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011_AAA_CrashvCongUpd.pdf

20. The Economic Burden of Traffic Crashes on Employers. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/economicburden/pages/WhatDoTCCost.html

21. Expert Trial Lawyer on Distracted Driving Risk and Liability. http://zoomsafer.com/buzz/blog/video-interview-expert-trial-lawyer-on-distracted-driving-risk-and-liability/

22. Vehicle Safety Communications – Applications (VSC-A). September 2011, DOT HS 811 492A

23. Average Age of U.S. Car & Truck Fleets Hit Record High Levels. 1/18/2012 http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/average-age-of-us-car-and-truck-fleets-hit- record-high-levels/

http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/distraction.pdf

https://www.ncci.com/documents/research-traffic-accidents.pdf

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2011_AAA_CrashvCongUpd.pdf

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/economicburden/pages/WhatDoTCCost.html

http://zoomsafer.com/buzz/blog/video-interview-expert-trial-lawyer-on-distracted-driving-risk-and-liability/



http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/average-age-of-us-car-and-truck-fleets-hit-record-high-levels/





This research was compiled by Gayle Christopher, Ph.D., former Editor of CorporateWellnessAdvisor.com, for The St. Christopher Project, LLC, inventor of the CrashFlasher portable LED emergency beacon. April 2,2012.


crashes into disabled or stopped vehicles -...

Documents