Auto Traffic Safety

Examines deaths, injuries, and property damage from traffic crashes. Evans (research scientist, General Motors Research Labs, Warren, Michigan) applies the methods of science to illuminate the characteristics of these problems--their origin and nature as well as their severity. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

It is possible to eliminate death and serious injury from Canada’s roads. In other jurisdictions, the European Union, centres in the United States, and at least one automotive company aim to achieve comparable results as early as 2020. In Canada, though, citizens must turn their thinking on its head and make road safety a national priority. Since the motor vehicle first went into mass production, the driver has taken most of the blame for its failures. In a world where each person’s safety is dependent on a system in which millions of drivers must drive perfectly over billions of hours behind the wheel, failure on a massive scale has been the result. When we neglect the central role of the motor vehicle as a dangerous consumer product, the result is one of the largest human-made means for physically assaulting human beings. It is time for Canadians to embrace internationally recognized ways of thinking and enter an era in which the motor vehicle by-product of human carnage is relegated to history. No Accident examines problems related to road safety and makes recommendations for the way forward. Topics include types of drivers; human-related driving errors related to fatigue, speed, alcohol, and distraction and roads; pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit; road engineering; motor vehicle regulation; auto safety design; and collision-avoidance technologies such as radar and camera-based sensors on vehicles that prevent crashes. This multi-disciplinary study demystifies the world of road safety and provides a road map for the next twenty years.

A report on activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration under the Highway safety act of 1966 and the National traffic and motor vehicle safety act of 1966.

Decisions twenty years ago during the fIrst generation of modern traffIc safety policymaking were easier than today. Afterall, the mandate for specifIc mandatory motor vehicle safety standards was dermed rather clearly during legislative hearings. Since the initial standards, decisions have been based on the more general guidelines of "practicality" and avoiding "unreasonable risks. " Now, with more diffIcult decisions pending, the demand for analysis is greater. My purpose in writing this book is to promote second generation policymaking in traffic safety. The dominant theme is that an "individual net benefIt approach" is useful in the design, evaluation and improvement of traffic safety policy. Hopefully, this book provides some guidance for today's tougher decisions. Evaluative review of modern traffic safety policy, especially automobile safety standards, yields several results. The technological approach, the basis for the 1966 legislation, is shown to produce mistakes. Benefits are overestimated and endangerment of nonoccupants is ignored. The risk homeostatic approach, the devil's idea to some in the safety community, is shown to be a limiting case of the more general individual net benefIt approach. Rationality and competency in travelers' safety decisions are reviewed in a broad context. Evidence beyond the realm of behavioral ix x The Regulation of Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety psychology indicates considerable, albeit imperfect, competency in traffic safety decisions. Conventional benefit-cost analysis is critiqued. Existing studies of passive restraints are shown to overestimate net benefits because travelers' responses and costs are ignored.