Safety

Eliminating US Traffic Fatalities: It Is Possible

Car Technology 2 What would you say if someone told you there could be zero traffic deaths each year? It might sound like a pipe dream, but it’s not. Many safety advocates are saying it is possible to eliminate most of the 30,000 plus annual highway fatalities in the US.

How is it possible? Speeding up the adoption on new safety technology. Automakers are notoriously known for taking decades to fully integrate existing safety technology into cars on a standard basis. But, if automakers were to safely speed along their adoption process for things that have been around since 2000 like forward-collision warning, rear cameras, lane-departure warning, traffic-jam assist, adaptive cruise control, and more, the aim for Vision Zero could be within reach.

Vision Zero was written into Swedish law in 1997, stating no level of traffic fatalities would be acceptable. They are demanding 100 percent safety on the road. New technology advancements like vehicle-to-vehicle communications and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications are a part of making Vision Zero a reality.

But even without those technologies that are in the works, and just with what is possible as of 2015, US traffic deaths could be cut by almost 10,000 a year, that is, if these technologies were implemented in all cars on the roadway. That’s where it gets harder. The US has nearly 260 million light vehicles on the road with an average age of 11.5 years. That’s a lot of older cars without new technology and with no financial incentives many consumers won’t or can’t invest in newer, safer technology.

It’s time for consumers, automakers, and lawmakers to step up. It’s time to stop accepting traffic fatalities as a normal. It’s time to demand the safety technology available is implemented in new vehicles. It’s time to demand affordable, safer options for America’s roadways.

Want to read more about the aim for zero roadway fatalities? Read Aiming For Zero, Automotive News for more details on this goal that could become a reality.

Keeping Summer Safe: Pool Safety

Pool1 Cooling down from the summertime heat can be fun with a backyard pool or a trip to the local public pool. But, what starts out as a fun summer pastime can end up being a dangerous, even deadly, outing if basic pool safety is not followed.

Just take a look as these staggering facts regarding water safety:

Drowning is the leading cause of death for children ages 1-2
Drowning is the second leading cause of death for children ages 3-6
In 2013 the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) noted that 200 children ages 1-14 died in pools and spas
It only takes two minutes for child to loose consciousness
There are approximately 800 spinal cord injuries from diving annually (1/4 related to pool incidents)

So how do you keep your loved ones from being a part of those staggering statistics? Listen in as Kevin King discusses pool safety on People’s Law Talk.

For more information and resources on pool safety design visit the National Safety Council and the CPSC‘s websites.

Want to hear more talks from Peter and Kevin King? Tune into WCIS 1010 AM Columbus, IN the first and third Friday of every month for People’s Law Talk.

Riding Safe: Selecting a Bicycle Helmet

Bicycle Helmet Safety Ready to cruise on your bicycle? Not without a helmet you’re not.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that nearly half a million emergency room visits in 2013 were due to bicycle related injuries. Although not all of these injuries were head injuries, approximate 75 percent of 700 bicycle deaths each year are related to head injuries.

With the risk of head injuries significant, it is vital to wear a properly fitted helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce the odds of head injury by 50 percent. Incredibly, only 21 states and the District of Columbia require helmets, but only of persons 17 years of age and younger.

Whether required by law or not, you need to be wearing a helmet on your bicycle. Selecting a bicycle helmet can be a daunting task to those outside the cycling industry as necessary information is not readily available and sometimes confusing. Bicycle helmets are marketed online, large retail stores, and bike shops. Prices can be very significant. With different styles and price ranges, what should you consider when purchasing an important aspect of bicycle safety?

One of the best sources of information is the Snell Memorial Foundation. Snell is a non-for-profit foundation working to provide information and independent testing of sport helmets, including bicycle helmets. When a helmet has been approved by Snell, there will be a Snell sticker inside the helmet. Consumers should look for a helmet that has been tested by Snell.

Snell testing covers four areas:

Impact Management: This determines how well the helmet protects against collisions with large helmets.
Positional Stability: This determines whether the helmet will be in place on the head in the event of a collision.
Retention Strength: This determines whether the chin straps will sufficiently hold the helmet throughout the head impact.
Overall Protection: This determines extent of protection to the head by the helmet.

Most consumers will find a label inside a helmet maintaining that the helmet meets Consumer Product Safety Commission Standard of March 1999. Snell testing augments the CPSC standard.

When you’re ready to purchase your helmet, it is suggested to purchase bicycle helmets from a dedicated bicycle shop. More likely true than not, bicycle shops will be familiar with proper fit and Snell approved helmets. Also strongly consider a helmet color that increases the cyclist visibility to motorists and pedestrians.

Besides Snell, www.helmets.org is also a good resource for learning about bicycle helmet safety.

Cyber Threats Leave Vehicles Vulnerable

Car Technology We have become reliant upon Bluetooth, WIFI, USB devices, and intelligent traffic communications within our vehicles. These features can improve fuel economy, reduce driver fatigue, and increase traffic safety, but it is all at a cost. Increased technologies can allow for dangerous breaches of security in vehicles. The Federal Bureau of Investigations and NHTSA recently published an alert regarding this automotive cybersecurity.

Vulnerabilities may exist within wireless communication functions of a vehicle allowing an attacker to gain access to vehicle systems. In August 2015, a vehicle was studied in an unaltered condition which allowed cyber-attacks to affect engine speed, brakes, steering, door locks, turn signals, radio, and GPS. Obviously, this is disturbing to consumers who have advanced electronics in their vehicles. The bulletin by the FBI and NHTSA while providing important information, did not address why this could occur or how it would be prevented.

Software safety is not only a software issue, it is a system issue. Software related hazards must be identified, understood, and mitigated considering that software interfaces with hardware, humans, and other software. Software safety is an integral aspect of the overall system safety plan and the methodology is documented in a system safety plan process.

Software safety is not the same as software reliability or quality assurance. A pragmatic way to determine software safety is by incorporating a bilateral safety process.

First, software functional coverage is a process focusing on functional design and hazard identification. Secondly, software development coverage focuses on specific development tasks to ensure high quality software is safe. The bilateral approach is a strategy intended to cover all aspects of software that can impact safety. The approach requires a system hazard analysis to identify hardware and software causal factors, identification of software at critical levels which will impact the level of rigor tasks performed by the software development effort.

With each model year, vehicles become more integrated regarding communications. It is necessary for designers and manufacturers of intelligent transportation systems to undertake system safety planning of software to identify and eliminate said hazards to the extent reasonably possible.

A Daily Struggle: Tethering Child Safety Seats

Daily, moms and dads across the country place their most precious cargo into a child safety seat and hit the road, all of them believing their children are safe and secure. With mandatory laws requiring that children be placed in car seats, two systems (seat and car) come into play and interact with one another. This interaction of a child safety seat with a vehicle is another example of how system safety can be used to recognize hazards and eliminate said hazards through design.

Over the years, there has been literature regarding parents’ alleged misuse of car seats relative to installation anchoring. Misuse is the incorrect term though. Parents use their best efforts to anchor car seats given the two systems they are utilizing. Designers of the systems (both car seat designers and car designers) should undertake studies well in advance of marketing to understand how parents will use both systems in conjunction.

In 2015 the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a study regarding LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children). The study found that latch hardware could be better designed for correct installation. The study recognized that parents often struggled to locate the anchors in vehicles or find it difficult to attach the car seat to the vehicle.

Lower anchors should be no more than ¾ inch deep in the seat bight (area where the seat back and base come together).

The left picture shows a depth of less than ¾ inch. The right picture shows a depth of greater than ¾ inch.

Upper anchor points should also be easy to find, clearly labeled, and not confused with such things as cargo hooks that could be mistaken for anchor points.

The two left images show vehicles with easy to find anchors without other hardware nearby that could be confused as anchors. The right image shows tethering anchors that are hard to find. They are hidden among other hardware that could easily be confused as anchors.

Securely anchoring child seats should not be a struggle for parents. Coordinating designs of child seats relative to vehicles is an example of how design induced error can occur when system safety is not used.

The Future Came Too Soon

Doc Brown and Marty McFly had to travel all the way to the future to find a hoverboard. Now we’re living in that future, only the future may have come too soon. Thousands of hoverboards are being sold without proper hazard analysis and now consumers are being put in grave danger.

On December 16, 2015, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a statement directing its agency staff to “work non-stop to find the root cause…” of fire hazards associated with hoverboards.

However, fire is not the only hazard relative to hoverboards. In the statement released by the CPSC, it also recognized that it has received dozens of reports of injuries from emergency rooms of hospitals relating to hoverboards.

Unbeknownst to consumers, risk of serious injury is associated with hoverboards. By comparison, approximately 120,500 people are treated annually in emergency rooms for skateboard injuries. Half of the injured are between the ages of 15-24. More than 34 percent are 14 and younger. Head injuries, fractures, internal organ injuries are some of the serious injuries.

Consumers are not aware of the ‘gravity of risk’ associated with hoverboard use. Consumers might believe that these incidents “only happen to someone else” or “I will be careful” in using a product. However, such wishful thinking is unacceptable regarding product design.

The most effective means to avoid incidents is by eliminating or reducing hazards during the design and development of a product before reaching consumers, but, as the saying goes, “it is too late to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.”

Designers and manufactures of hoverboards should have undertaken hazard analyses to identify unsafe physical conditions and risk analyses to determine the probability of serious injury and/or death. Within risk analyses, there should be further analyses to understand how consumers will use the product.

As the CPSC continues their investigation, they should demand designers and manufacturers provide their hazard and risk analyses regarding hoverboards. This would greatly assist the CPSC in its investigation. Otherwise, tax payers will end up footing the bill to determine root causes of why hoverboards are causing damage to consumers and property.

The future came too soon and now consumers are in harms way. It’s too late to go back, so now it’s time to find the way to a safer future.